Kunti Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 December, 2016

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Kunti Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 December, 2016

Equivalent citations: 2017 (1) AJR 311

Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra

                                                1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2010   

       [Against the judgment of conviction dated 28.8.10 and the order 
       of sentence dated 28.8.10 passed by Sri Md. Mustaque Ahmad, 
       learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No. 9/09] 

      Kunti Kumari, wife of Purendu Kumar, resident of P. Banerjee Road, 
      PO Mihijam, PS Mihijam, District Jamtara.       ....Appellant
                                  Versus

     The State of Jharkhand                                               .... Respondent 
                                                          
     PRESENT :                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA 
          
              For the Appellant:                   M/s Rajendra Krishna &
                                                  Jai Shankar Tiwari, Advocates. 
              For the State              :       Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, A.P.P.
                                                        
     Reserved on: 27/06/2016                                 Pronounced on:09/12/2016
                                                            ...
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.:
             Appellant has preferred the instant memo of appeal against the 
      judgment of conviction dated 28.8.10 and the order of sentence dated 
      28.8.10

passed by Sri Md. Mustaque Ahmad, learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No. 9/09 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 3(i) (x) of SC and ST Act and Section 504 of IPC and she has been sentenced SI for 4 months under Section 504 of IPC and further SI for 6 months under Section 3

(i) (x) of SC and ST Act and all sentences are to run concurrently.

2. PW7, Amita Tudu, is the informant and as per her written report, she is the President of Village Education Committee, Middle School, Kora Para and a social worker. On 18.12.2007, as per the letter No. 1170 dated 12.12.2007 of the District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, for the training for 2008 2009 Budget Meeting, the Secretary had made preparation for meals with her assistance for the trainees.

Around 1.30 p.m., when she was about to give the meal packet to Kunti Kumari, then Kunti Kumari snatched the meal packet from her hands and abused her with respect to her community and said 2 that the informant belongs to low caste, who eats the meat of pig and cow. From your hands, even a dog will not eat, how did you dare to give the packet, and calling her by her tribe name, namely, Santhal, went out of the school premises. In this way, she was abused and insulted by the teacher in the presence of many teachers and trainees by which she was mentally much harassed.

3. On the basis of the written report the FIR was registered as SC / ST Jamtara P.S. Case No. 05/07, under Section 504 IPC and 3(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid Sections. Cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to which, she pleaded innocence. Accordingly, trial was conducted, witnesses examined and at the conclusion of which the learned Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge, Jamtara convicted and sentenced the appellant SI for 4 months under Section 504 IPC and further SI for 6 months under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. Hence, this appeal.

4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses.

5. PW7, Amita Tudu, is the claimed victim and informant. She has deposed that incident is of 18.12.2007 at about 1.30 p.m. That time she was in a meeting at Kora Para Middle School and budget session was going on.

On the last day of the meeting food arrangement was made by her. For the vegetarian, there was packet arranged. At 1.30 p.m. Kunti Devi and two other teachers were sitting in the varanda. When she took the snacks packet to Kunti Devi and gave it to her, she took it and threw it, saying that, even a dog will not eat food touched by her, you are of a low community. You eat cow, you eat pig, how dare you to offer me a packet. I will destroy you. My husband works in the police. Again she by calling her Santhal insulted her. She further 3 deposed that she wanted to file a case that day itself, but teachers said if the accused apologizes, the matter will be ended, but the accused did not apologize, hence, this case was lodged after 2 days.

In crossexamination, she has stated that she does not know whether Kunti Kumari has complained against her to higher authority of Education Department. She is a sound worker and in touch with the administrative and police authorities. She knew Kunti from before and used to meet her at meetings. Prior to this incident the accused never behaved badly with her. She knew Shibu Nath Niyogi. She has lodged a case against him under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. In the packet, there was mithai, banana, bundiya, vegetable, half an apple etc.

6. PW2, Savitri Rajak has deposed that she saw tiffin was thrown and Kunti Devi was telling she will not eat lunch, touched by the informant. Informant eats cow, pig and belongs to Santhal caste(tribe). During crossexamination, she deposed that Savitri Kora, Lakhi Soren, Savita Tudu and she ( Savitri Rajak) all are SC/ST and they made the food, then no one opposed them. All teachers ate the food cooked by us. Kunti Devi has never opposed eating and food from any person's hands. The food was being distributed in the varanda, and they were cooking food in a room. We were not in the varanda when food was distributed. For nonvegetarian, there was arrangement for meat and rice, while for vegetarian there was packet arranged. In her crossexamination, she has said, it is not that no such incident took place and Kunti has not said any inappropriate word to Amita Tudu.

7. PW3, Pareshnath Ghosh has deposed that occurrence is of 18.12.2007. It was a budget meeting. Members, Secretaries and Presidents of 10 schools were present there. All members said that informant Amita Tudu will make the arrangements for the meal. Thereafter for vegetarians packet was arranged. Just when Kunti received the packet, she exclaimed that others will eat chicken.

Thereafter, Kunti threw the packet away. Amita Tudu said, as a teacher why do you throw the food. If you did not like the food then it could be replaced. On this issue, both were quarreling. After which Kunti told him, you have put the Santhal on your head, I do not eat food touched by them. I tried to explain to her but she did not agree.

In his crossexamination, he said that he had told the police that Kunti had told him that you have put the Santhal on your head and that she does not eat the food touched by Santhal. It is not true that he had not said any such thing. There was about 30 to 40 persons present in the training. The meal was going on in the kitchen. There were about 56 vegetarians and some of them also ate rice and vegetable. Only one packet was thrown.

8. PW4, Usha Hembram has deposed that occurrence is dated 12.12.2007. She is a teacher from 1999. A meeting of the budget session was going on. There was arrangement for meat and for vegetarian, there was packet arrangement. It was a time for tiffin and everyone began opening their tiffins. The vegetarians also opened their tiffins. There was some shortcoming in the packet according to the vegetarians and they were not happy. Just then Kunti said, as compared to meat our packet should be good and threw her packet on the ground. Then a quarrel began between the two. Just then, Kunti said you eat pig, you are the child of pig, you are lower caste, you are Santhal, saying all these Kunti left the place.

In the cross examination, she said that Kunti does not hold any prejudice against us and eats food touched by us. Even during the training Kunti had consumed pomegranate and water given by her. She was not there when the food was distributed, but when they were quarreling she reached there. Kunti had said the inappropriate things in anger and frustration and she had no intention to insult Amita. When Kunti and Amita were quarreling, about 200 persons were present.

It is not correct that Kunti did not say anything inappropriate to Amita but Amita had absued Kunti and told her if you want to eat, eat or go.

9. PW5, Savita Tudu has deposed that occurrence took place about 3 years ago at Kora Para School. Amita Tudu, who was President of Gram Shiksha Samiti, was giving tiffin to Kunti Kumari, who is a teacher in Mihijam School. She did not like the tiffin and she took the tiffin and threw it away. She took the tiffin from Amita Tudu's hand and said I will not eat the tiffin. Not even a dog will eat from your hand. She is of Santhal jati and eats cow and pig and referring to caste (community) gave Amita Tudu a lot of abuse.

In her crossexamination, she has said that she is of Santhal caste. If we are called Santhal, then we will be insulted. In our caste, we eat cow, snake and pig.

10. PW6 is Namita Tapadar. She has deposed that incident is of 2008. Again she says that incident is of 12.12.2007. During the incident, she was in Kora Para School. In the school, training was going on and there was arrangement for food. Many persons from many schools were present. For vegetarians there was packet arranged. Taking the packet, Kunti Kumari said that in comparison to nonvegetarians, the arrangement for those who have packets is not good. And then she threw the packet. On this Amita opposed and quarreled erupted between the two. In the cross examination, she said that it is wrong to say that any such incident did not take place. It is wrong to say that Amita Tudu has trapped Kunti Kumari in a false case.

11. PW1, Manju Kumari Saha, deposed that occurrence is dated 18.12.2007, on that day, she was on leave, when she came back, learnt about the occurrence. She is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

12. PW8, Rajaram Prasad, who is I.O. has deposed that he examined informant on 20.12.2007.

Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant:

13. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there has been delay in lodging of the FIR by 2 days, the date of occurrence is 18.12.2007 but FIR was registered on 20.12.2007. This was done so to manufacture a case against the appellant and delay is not explainable. He takes the help of "Bhajan Singh versus State of Haryana" , AIR 2011 SC 2552 to buttress his point on delay.

14. Another case of argument by the counsel for the appellant has been that though there were 6 chargeshetted witnesses, 8 witnesses were examined, which is not permissible. Moreover, these two additional witnesses are PW 5, Savita Tudu and PW7, Amita Tudu, the informant herself, and their evidences cannot be used to convict the appellant. It is pointed out that seemingly the DSP met the informant during investigation, but did not record her statement, hence, she was not made chargesheeted witness.

15. One line of argument that has been taken is that the insults are not proved because they were if hurled at all, not so at a public place or space, because the school where the insults were made is not a public space, rather it is a private space. In support of his argument, in this regard, he has cited "Swaran Singh & others versus State through Standing Counsel & another" (2008) 8 SCC 435 (paras27 & 28).

16. Another line of argument by the learned counsel for the appellant has been that no investigating officer was appointed as per the terms of Section 7(1) of the SC and ST (PoA) Rules and therefore, the entire investigation is questionable and vitiated and deserves to be disregarded. Hence, the appellant cannot be convicted because of this ground also. He has read out Section 7(1) of the SC and ST (PoA) Rules, 1995, which reads thus:

"7. Investigating Officer. (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State 7 Government/ Director General of Police/ Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time."

He has also cited the ruling in State of Punjab versus Hardial Singh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 106 to support his argument on the point of Rule 7(1) of the SC and ST (PoA) Rules. Learned counsel for the appellant has also asserted that State of Punjab (supra) follows ratio as laid down in State of M.P. versus Chunnilal, (2009) 12 SCC 649 both of which lay down that the investigation must be done by a DSP rank officer properly appointed as per the law laid down in the SC and ST (PoA) Rules, 1995 and rules thereof. Since that does not seem to be the case, the appellant's conviction herein is not sustainable.

17. He has also argued that it is made out from the evidence on record also that the appellant had not "intentionally" insulted or done so with "intent to humiliate".

Regarding PW5, Savita, it is argued that she is wellknown to the informant, hence, an interested witness, possibly put up by the informant.

Regarding PW2, Savitri Rajak, it is also argued that she has deposed that nobody opposed their cooking and appellant has never refused eating food from her, which will demonstrate that appellant does not hold prejudice against the informant. Furthermore, she was not in varanda where tiffin was being distributed but cooking inside the room, hence, she is not an eye witness and her evidence can be discounted. Moreover, she does not know how many packets fell down or were thrown.

PW3, Pareshnath Ghosh, has deposed that the appellant had said that you have put the Santhal on your head. Counsel for the appellant has said that this was addressed to PW3 and not the informant, and moreover, merely taking the name of Santhal is not an 8 abuse. Santhal could also be construed as a place, since no where it is indicated as a caste.

As per the deposition of PW3, there is even reference to some dispute pertaining to construction of school building, and therefore, the appellant has been framed by informant. PW4 is Usha Hembram and a teacher in the same school. She has in her cross examination deposed that Kunti does not hold prejudice and takes food and drink from them. So, as per appellant's counsel, the accused does not have any intention to insult or abuse informant. Further from the deposition of this witness, it has been disclosed that almost 200 persons were there during fighting, and only 6 to 8 persons have been examined. These persons are all associated or known to the informant, therefore, appellant cannot be convicted on the testimony of interested witnesses.

Regarding PW5, Savita Tudu, it was argued that she was not a chargesheeted witness and her evidence needs to be discounted. Moreover, she is known to the informant since childhood, hence, totally biased against the appellant. Moreover, she accompanied the informant to Court, hence, she is not reliable.

PW7, Amita Tudu, is the informant. Regarding PW7, counsel for the appellant has also said that she is also not a chargesheeted witness, hence, her evidence needs to be discounted. Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that even the informant herself has said that never before has the appellant misbehaved with her, and this will also prove that there was no prejudice or intent on the part of the appellant to insult or humiliate the informant.

18. PW8, Rajaram Prasad, who is I.O. of the case. Regarding his deposition, counsel for the appellant has basically said that his appointment was not as per the rules as laid down by the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and hence his entire investigation and deposition stands discounted, and based on his investigation, the appellant cannot be convicted. He was only 9 authorized to investigate by the officerincharge of the police station, which is much below the designated officer who can authorize the investigation.

Argument of the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State:

19. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has, on the other hand, argued that from the deposition of PW7, informant, she has fully corroborated the FIR. Insulting in terms of community or tribe of the informant is explicitly stated. Moreover, school is a public place, and it has come from various depositions that many persons were present at the time of occurrence.

Further, intention can be made out that she took the packet, then throw it away, hence, insulting informant. If she simply refused the packet, the insult and intent would not be there.

Learned A.P.P. has said that PW2 has clearly deposed that informant was giving tiffin, and she saw the thrown tiffin and the appellant was saying she will not eat food touched by the informant. Counsel then said all these took place in public place in public view.

PW3, Pareshnath Ghosh, is the Principal of the school. Learned A.P.P. submits that he is an independent and natural witness. He has deposed that the appellant was unhappy with the food served to her and she threw it away. That the appellant then said you have put the Santhal on your head, and that she does not eat food touched by them. That he had tried to explain to her, but the appellant did not agree. Learned A.P.P. also pointed out that from his evidence, it is clear that during the incident there were 40 persons present, hence, such incident occurred in public place under public view.

PW4 is Usha Hembram. She is also a teacher in the said school. Learned A.P.P. submitted that from the evidence of PW4, it is clear that appellant was not happy with the food and threw it away, at which, a quarrel began between informant and appellant. The appellant then said that the informant ate pig, and she is a child of pig and lower caste and Santhal.

In the crossexamination, PW4 has said about 200 persons were present at the time of occurrence.

Regarding PW6, Namita Tapadar, learned A.P.P. has said that in her cross examination, she has deposed that it is wrong to depose that any such incident did not take place or that Amita Tudu had trapped the appellant in a false case.

Regarding PW8, Rajaram Prasad, who is I.O. of the case, learned A.P.P. argued that he has proved the place of occurrence, and taken the statements of named persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and then submitted charge sheet.

F I N D I N G

20. To address some of the pertinent issue raised and also for brevity, I shall first take the point that the DSP in this case was not properly authorized.

Section 9 of the SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989 reads as under:

"9. Conferment of powers. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do,

(a) for the prevention of and for coping with any offence under this Act, or

(b) for any case or class or group of cases under this Act, in any district or part thereof, confer, by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government, the powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code in such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for such case or class or group of cases, and in particular, the powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons before any Special Court.

(2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government shall assist the officer referred to in subsection (1) in the execution of the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme or order made thereunder.

(3) The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to the exercise of the powers by an officer under subsection (1)."

Further, Rule 7 of the SC and ST (PoA) Rules, 1995 reads thus:

"7. Investigating Officer. (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/ Director General of Police/ Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it alongwith right lines within the shortest possible time.

(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submits the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police to the State Government.

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer incharge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer."

21. In this case, from the deposition of PW8, Rajaram Prasad, who is I.O. of the case, it is clear that he was authorized by the officerincharge of the police station, hence, not authorized by the correct officer or as per the rules stated therein. Hence, as per the provisions of law, it does not seem it was complied and in this context, convicting the appellant for any offence under the SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989 will not hold.

22. In the case of State of M.P. versus Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, (2009) 12 SCC 649, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, at para7 and 8 as follows:

"7......By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue a notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigating officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer."

"8. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the chargesheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence."

Hence, it will not be possible to convict her under the SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and therefore, the sentence is also not sustainable.

23. Regarding conviction under Section 504, IPC, first one needs to see the provision, which reads thus:

"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

The aspects that may be relevant and are to be found in this case are "Intentionally insults". From the evidence on deposition of the witnesses it is clear that intention was present leading to insults pertaining to the tribe or community or people to whom the informant belonged. From the disclosure or language used by the appellant in the altercation with the informant, the intention of the appellant can be gathered or assessed. Her actions also portray the same. There was some dissatisfaction over food, and the food packet was thrown, which itself is a despicable act. On top of this, she says she does not or cannot eat food touched by Santhals. She reveals her deep seated 13 prejudice by stating that the informant eats pig and cow and seems to consider it demeaning. The situation in which the appellant said this reveals that she has some negative feelings towards persons who eat pigs and cows. The intention is made further clear, when in spite of the matter being explained by the Principal and waiting for an apology from the appellant none was forthcoming, and it is then only after a delay of 2 days the FIR was lodged by the informant. So intention and insult both are present in a significant manner.

24. Other ingredients are "intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the peace, or to commit any other offence". It cannot be said that the appellant did not intend or did not know that the insults or provocations would not injure or hurt the sentiments of the informant. In fact, it seems that the insults were so intended to provoke feeling of hurt or humiliation. Being a teacher, the appellant is expected to know that such comments would lead to mental injury and anguish, which could very well cause one to break the public peace. It is another matter that the informant held her peace, but, it is definite that her frame of mind was so disturbed that she lodged the FIR against the appellant. India is still a country where caste, tribe, community or religion sentiments hold strong over the members belonging to such group. The reference here was to the Santhal people or community and since the insult or provocation was made in the presence of other tribal school staff and the area being an area with significant tribal population, other members of the Santhal or tribal community not being present cannot be assumed. On the contrary, it would have been otherwise.

25. One line of argument has been that though there were six chargesheeted witnesses, eight have been examined or two more. That the additional two witnesses' evidence cannot, according to the appellant, be used against her. The additional witnesses include the informant, Amita Tudu, PW7 and Savita Tudu PW5. If one were to concede to this argument, then the evidence of PW7 or the informant 14 would be meaningless. However, even if one were to concede to this line of reasoning, the written report would still be supported by the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, which all taken together are equally damning and would lead to conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 504 IPC. The offence under Section 3(i) (x) of SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989, would only be not applicable because of technical handicaps, the blame for which lies on police and prosecution.

26. However, the evidence of PW7 and PW5 may still be used. Thus has been held so in "Chandu Veeraiah and others versus State of Andhra Pradesh", reported in 1960 CriLJ 791 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed:

".....There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which obliges the police to give in their chargesheet a list of all or any of the witnesses whom they propose to examine although as a matter of practice, a list of witnesses is furnished. The practice, no doubt, is a desirable one. But merely because such a list is furnished, it is not to be considered exhaustive and as disabling the prosecution from examining any other witness. In any case, the power vested in the Court under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not subject to any restrictions because thereby the Court is empowered to "summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person already examined; .....if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case."

And further in "J.B. Roy versus The State", reported in 1968 CriLJ 1035, the Hon'ble Court observed:

"....The list of witnesses usually is given by the Police along with the chargesheet because of the prevalent practice. The practice is undoubtedly desirable but no provision of the Code compels the prosecution to furnish any such list along with the chargesheet. Nor furnishing of such a list of witnesses along with chargesheet can mean that the prosecution has relinquished its right to call for any other witness whost name is not mentioned in the list. Nor binds the court to record only the statements of such persons whose names appear in the list. It does not disable the prosecution or the Court from examining any other witness 15 if it is found desirable or necessary for the purposes of the case."

Further:

"10. That apart, the Court has ample powers under Section 540 of the Code to summon any material witness or examine any person who is present in the Court. That section consists of two parts. (1) Giving a discretion to the Court to examine a witness at any stage; and (2) the mandatory portion which compels a Court to examine" a witness if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. The object of the section manifestly is to enable the court to arrive at the truth Irrespective of the fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of the case. This section confers very wide powers upon a Court in the matter of summoning witnesses. It is neither confined to the persons who have been examined orally or whose statements have been reduced into writing by the Police during investigation, nor is it limited to the list filed by the prosecution along with the chargesheet. The discretion given by the section is very wide but at the same time it must be remembered that the mere width of the discretion requires the Court to exercise it sparingly and with a good deal of caution. It should not be exercised at the dictation of any Party nor can the exercise of such discretion be abandoned merely because the accused objects to the exercise of such discretion. The section is usually, associated with Court witnesses, that is to say, the witnesses examined by the Court on its Own behalf, but there is nothing in the section itself so to limit it and it can apply also to witnesses for the prosecution as well as witnesses for the defence...."

Hence, the evidence of PW7 and PW5 is of evidentiary value and acceptable, and thus adds to the body of evidence available against the appellant.

27. Another line of argument has been that insults are not proved because the incident did not occur in a public place, and in support of her argument, appellant has relied on "Swaran Singh & others versus State through Standing Counsel & another", reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 (paras 27 & 28).

28. However, since conviction under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not being passed by the 16 Court for what it considers technical reasons as discussed earlier, the issue is confined to Section 504 IPC. Nevertheless, on the basis of many persons, in fact, as many as four PWs and whose evidence this Court finds truthful and reliable, the appellant would still be liable for the intentional insults as read in Section 504 IPC.

29. This Court has also noted the defense made on behalf of the appellant that some witnesses had also favourably deposed in favour of the appellant, such as PW2 deposed that appellant had never refused eating food prepared by her and PW4 has deposed that Kunti does not hold prejudice and takes food and drink from them, and that Kunti Devi had asked for water even during training session. These reasons though favourable and even showing the appellant in a good light does not totally obliterate the offence as described by the informant and witness and does bring it within the purview of Section 504 IPC.

30. Hence, based on the aforesaid reasonings, evidences and in the facts and circumstances, the conviction under Section 3(i) (x) of SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989 is not sustained, merely for technical reasons, though significant evidence was against her. However, her conviction under Section 504 IPC is upheld. Because of some favourable statements made in her favour, this Court is willing to consider some mitigation in the sentence, and therefore, she is sentenced to 15 day SI for the offence under Section 504, IPC.

31. Appellant is on bail, her bail bond is cancelled. The concerned or successor Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law to effect the modified sentence.

32. Appeal is accordingly dismissed, with above modification in conviction as well as sentence.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) SB/ NAFR .. . .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court