Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 1105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. PALO, J.
LAXMAN and others – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. A. No. 1999 of 1999
Decided On : 26-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. R. Tamrakar
For the Respondent: A. R. S. Chouhan
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove insult with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in public view under section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the reliance on medical evidence and relevant case laws to establish guilt.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal - SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - 325/34 IPC, 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., 2006(4) M.P.L.J. 171, Shankerlal vs. State of M.P., ILR 2013 (MP) 2457, Sharad Kachhi vs. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPHT 30, Bharwada Bhagan Bhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, Rambaksh vs. State of M.P., 1961 M.P.L.J. Short Note 152 - The court analyzed the evidence and held the accused guilty under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. The court also discussed the necessity to prove insult with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in public view under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, and referred to relevant case laws for interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was assaulted by the accused persons, resulting in grievous injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under section 325/34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented, including the medical evidence corroborating the injuries sustained by the complainant. The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR and the minor contradictions in witness statements, ultimately affirming the conviction.
Issues: The issues involved the authenticity of the complainant's caste status, the requirement to prove insult with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in public view, the credibility of witness statements, and the delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the medical evidence, relevant case laws, and the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR to establish the guilt of the accused under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the accused under section 325/34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants, modifying the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 7-7-1999, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities), Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 16/1999, whereby the appellants, namely Laxman, Ajmer @ Kallu and Viran have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity Act, 1989) and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, Munnalal (PW-1) is ‘Chamar’ by caste which falls under the Schedule Caste category. The appellants neither belong to Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe. On 18-9-1996, complainant- Munnalal (PW-1) was returning after taking bath from ‘Narmada’ river to his house, on the way the accused persons surrounded him at the instance of the accused-Khuman who has been acquitted by the trial Court. The accused persons inflicted injuries by ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) and fists. The complainant-Munnalal (PW-1) sustained injuries on his head, left calf and the palm of the hand and on the back. He also had fracture on the little finger of the left hand. He became unconscious. He was found in the field by Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) on 19-6-1996. He was taken to the Police Station Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur and after lodging report (Exhibit-P/1) he was sent for medical examination. After accused persons were arrested, wooden sticks were seized from them in presence of witnesses. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under section 325/34, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 the accused persons abjured guilty. Accused No. 1- Khuman pleaded that he was on duty at Bikrampur Railway Station, Narsinghpur on 18-9-1996 from 9 A.M. till 5 P.M. The accused/appellant No. 3-Viran claimed that he was at his shop at the time of incident and pleaded that he is innocent. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 7-7-1999, after analyzing the evidence on the basis of the certificate (Annexure-D-4), held the presence of accused No. 1-Khuman at Railway Station which has not been contradicted by the prosecution, and acquitted him and sentenced other accused persons/appellant as mentioned above, for the offences under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. The deposition of Ram Prasad is not supported with the FIR and none of the witness persons were examined. Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) haven’t seen the incident. The learned trial Court erred in law and facts, the entire story has been framed in order to meet the previous vengeance. As per the FIR no witness has seen the incident. The learned trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence in correct perspective.
5. On the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposing the arguments advanced, referring the incriminating pieces of evidence has submitted that the judgment impugned is well merited and does not call for any interference.
6. Munnalal (PW-1) is the complainant, as per his statement and which is supported by his sister-Savitri Bai (PW-2). The complainant belongs to member of ‘Chamar’ caste which is a Scheduled Caste community. But, no caste certificate has been obtained from the Competent Authority. Thus, non-production of caste certificate makes the prosecution suspicious. So far as it relates to offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989.
7. In Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., reported
