2002 Supreme(MP) 820

S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Mangilal v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 1997 (I); Decided on 13.8.2002.

Headnote:Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 -- S. 3(1)(x) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 294 -- appellant charged of uttering abusive language -- no sufficient ground to prove that it occurred in a public place -- not even mentioned in FIR -- does not lead to the inference that it happened in public place.

        vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 3¼1½(x) && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 294 && vihykFkhZ xkyh&xykSt dh Hkk"kk mPpkfjr djus ds fy, vkjksfir && ;g lkfcr djus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha fd ;g yksd LFkku esa ?kfVr gqvk && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa Hkh mYys[k ugha && ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk fd ;g yksd LFkku esa ?kfVr gqvkA

        Accused appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment dated 8.8.1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge Dewas, designated under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the Act) in Special Case No. 145/97 whereby the learned trial Court convicted appellant No. 2 Kailash under S. 323 of the IPC and appellant Mangilal was convicted under S. 294 IPC and S. 3(1)(x) of the Act. Accused appellant Kailash was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 700/- in default further imprisonment for 1-½ month. Accused appellant Mangilal was sentenced to pay Rs. 500/- fine under S. 294 IPC and S. 3(1)(x)of the Act and six months RI, Rs. 500/fine; in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for two months.

       During the pendency of the appeal, complainant Vinod Kumar PW 1 and the accused persons have filed an application under S. 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alongwith compromise for compounding of the offences alleged against the appellants. This Court by order dated, 17.10.2001 on the basis of said application and the compromise, arrived at between the parties, acquitted appellant No.2 Kailash of the offence under S. 323 IPC and accused appellant No.1 Mangilal was acquitted of the offence under S. 294 of the IPC. As the offence under S. 3(l)(x) of the Act was not compoundable, this appeal was survived for consideration only for the aforesaid offence against appellant No.1 Mangilal. As per case of the prosecution on the date of the incident; i.e.

       . 3.11.1992, accused appellant Mangilal gave filthy abuses to complainant Vinod kumar, a member of Scheduled Caste and also uttered word "Bhangda" with the intention to insult a member of Scheduled Caste at a public place.

        I have heard Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant Mangilal and Shri Mayank Upadhyay, D.G.A. for the respondent State.

       Main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that from the statement of PW 1 Vinodkumar and other evidence available on record, it is not proved that word "Bhangda" was uttered for the complainant with the intention to insult the complainant on the ground that he is a member of Scheduled Caste. LIC also contended that the alleged incident had taken place inside the floor mill of the appellant Mangilal in absence of any other persons or the general public. As such, the impugned judgment convicting appellant No.1 Mangilal under S.3(1)(x) of the Act, is not sustainable under the law.

       As against this, learned D.G.A. appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the accused appellant Mangilal has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) of the Act.

       Considering the submission of the learned counsel and on perusal of the statement of PW.1 Vinod Kumar it emerged that in his statement as also in FIR (Ex. P.1) the complainant has only stated that at the time of the alleged incident appellant Mangilal gave him filthy abuses and also used word "Bhangda" in the statement or in the FIR he did not say anything that by uttering the word "Bhangda", he felt insulted as he is belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste.

       In case of Dulesingh v. State (1993 (1) MPLR 223) this Court while considering provision of S. 3(1)(x) of the Act, held that-"Uttering of words Chama ran Achhut without any intention to cause insult or humiliation on the member of Scheduled Caste, did not constitute accusation for the offence under S. (1)(x) of the Act.

       A Similar view is also expressed by this Court in case Ratanlal v. State of M.P. (1994 (1) MPWN 154 and held that - :

       "Mere utterance of word "Khatik" to the complainant without any intention to insult or annoy the complainant are not sufficient to base conviction under S. 3(1)(x) of the Act." As per provisions of the S. 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is necessary that the words amounting to insult or annoy the complainant to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be uttered in a place within the public view. In this case as per evidence on the record, it emerged that the alleged word "Bhangda" was said to be uttered for the cori1plainant inside the flour mill of appellant Mangilal when no other person from the public was present at the spot; as such, in view of the aforesaid fact also the accused appellant Mangilal cannot be held guilty for the alleged .offence punishable under S. 3(1)(x) of the Act.

       As a result of foregoing discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under S. 3(1)(x) of the Act are set aside and appellant Mangilal is acquitted of the said charge. The amount of fine, if deposited by the appellant Mangilal , be refunded to him. Accused appellant Mangilal is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.