Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2012
Author: Sheema Ali Khan
Bench: Sheema Ali Khan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.302 of 2000
==========================================================
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 10TH AUGUST, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL
NO.G.R. No. 682 of 1992/SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 08 OF 2000 BY SHRI
ASHIM KUMAR DUTTA, SPECIAL JUDGE (S.C./S.T.ACT), SITAMARHI
===========================================================
1.Ashok Kumar Singh son of Rajdeo Singh
2.Ram Naresh Singh son of Rajdeo Singh
Both residents of village-Bokatha, p.s. Majorganj, district-Sitamarhi
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28-08-2012
Sheema Ali The two appellants have been convicted to undergo
Khan, J.
R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, each by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitamarhi in G.R. No. 682 of 1992/Sessions Trial No.08 of 2000 by the judgment dated 10th August, 2000 under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The fardbeyan has been recorded on 15.07.1992 wherein Ishwarbati Devi P.W.4 has stated that one year ago, she had gone to the flour mill of Ram Vinay Singh to get her wheat grinded. At that time Ram Naresh Singh and Ashok Singh had also come to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.302 of 2000 dt.28-08-2012 2 the mill. They entered into hot exchange of words with her, claiming that they had arrived to get their wheat grinded earlier in time as such their wheat should be grinded earlier. It is said that they abused the informant.
3. It is further alleged that in the evening on the same day, the appellants came to the house of the informant and assaulted her. It is also alleged that one Nandal Lal Singh, Brij Nandan Singh and Gauri Shankar Singh also encouraged the appellants to assault the informant. On alarm being raised Badri Paswan, Bijadhar Paswan and Manorama Devi came to the place of occurrence and witnessed the assault.
4. Apparently the First Information Report was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the informant Ishwarbati Devi P.W.4 under Sections 147, 323, 324, 447, 452, 379 Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The said complaint petition is Exhibit-B, which has been brought on record by the defence. It is stated that the occurrence took place in which the informant was assaulted, she got herself examined by the doctor and thereafter the case was sent for institution at the Police Station.
5. I shall begin with the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6. On examination of Ishwarbati Devi P.W.4, he found upper Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.302 of 2000 dt.28-08-2012 3 limb was cut and she had a bruise on the head and left buttock. She was examined on 22.09.1991. The injuries had been described as simple in nature. The doctor has stated that he has examined the lady on requisitions made by the Investigating Officer. Thus it appears that the allegation of assault has been medically substantiated.
6. Altogether six witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.1, Bijadhar Paswan has supported the prosecution case regarding the second occurrence that is the occurrence of assault. In his cross-examination, he discloses that he had also witnessed the first part of the occurrence, when there was a dispute with respect to grinding of the wheat. According to his evidence he has stated that he used to go for work in the morning at 8 A.M. and he returned home at 5.P.M. In view of this fact he could not have witnessed the first part of the occurrence.
7. P.W.2 Badri Paswan claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence as he has stated that he had gone to the mill in the morning and witnessed the first part of the occurrence and thereafter he had remained at home. He went to the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of voices.
8. P.W.3 Manorma Devi is a witness of the assault wherein she alleges that the appellants along with one other had assaulted the informant. She is the sister of the informant. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.302 of 2000 dt.28-08-2012 4 informant has examined herself as P.W.4 and has stated that there was exchange of hot words between her and Ram Naresh Singh, she claims that her wheat was snatched by Ram Naresh Singh. She also supports the prosecution case that her sister was assaulted in the evening by the appellants.
9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that no such occurrence had taken place. The injuries are manufactured as the doctor has stated in his cross- examination that such injuries may be manufactured and has argued that no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This Court finds the second part of the occurrence unbelievable. There was no occasion or provocation which would lead the appellants to enter the neighbourhood of the informant to assault. The evidence of the so called eye witnesses to the case cannot be believed. It does not stand reason, that should stand and watch a woman being assaulted without raising hue and cry or retaliating in any manner especially as they were unarmed with any lethal weapons.
10. From the evidence aforesaid, it would appear that the occurrence took place in two parts. The first part of the occurrence is when the informant went to the mill to get her wheat grinded at the mill, she entered into a dispute with Ram Naresh Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.302 of 2000 dt.28-08-2012 5 Singh, appellant no. 2 who is said to have abused her. In the second part of the occurrence, Ram Naresh Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh have allegedly assaulted her with a rod and other accused persons assaulted her by fists and slaps. It may be noted that on both occasions both these appellants have not used any filthy language which would indicate the caste of the informant or abused her by taking her caste name, rather it is a simple case for assault which took place because of the dispute which had occurred earlier in the day. Section 3(1)(xi) envisages that a person who is not a member of a scheduled caste and a scheduled tribe. These acts as defined under the Section would be punished for an offence under this Act. According to Section 3(1) (xi) states as follows:
"Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty."
11. The definition above envisages that there should be assault or use of force on a woman belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe with the intention to dishonour her or to outrage her modesty. Even if the case of the appellants are accepted in its totality, the facts in the present case do not disclose any such act which had been done, with the intention to outrage or dishonour the modesty of the informant. At the most, it would be a case of assault Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.302 of 2000 dt.28-08-2012 6 because of exchange of hot words which supposedly took place earlier in the day. The occurrence that had taken place earlier in the day does not indicate that the appellants had used any unparliamentary word or called her by her caste name, when there was exchange of words. Therefore, it cannot be said that the act aforesaid constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
12. Counsel for the State argues that this Court ought to convict the appellants as a case is made out under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. Besides holding that this Court does not believe the manner in which the occurrence took place, the ocular evidence does not quite support the medical evidence. Swelling and bruises do not lead this Court to believe that the allegation of assault by fists and slaps or the use of rod could lead to the injuries as indicated by the Doctor P.W.6.
13. In the result, the judgment of conviction is set aside, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are discharged from their liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.
(Sheema Ali Khan, J.) Vats/-