Jharkhand High Court
Kashika M. Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:8812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 03 of 2022
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2021
passed in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2012 arising out of Sadar (SC/ST) P.S.
Case No. 16 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2245 of 2008 by Smt.
Kashika M. Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag)
Vijay Mohan Mishra, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Dukh Mochan Mishra,
resident of Tumol, P.O. & P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga (Bihar).
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
For the Appellant : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
30.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2012 arising out of Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2245 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and under Section 3(i)(vi) of the SC/ST Act and has been sentenced to undergo S.I for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I for 1 month for the offence under Section 3(vi) of the SC/ST Act. He has been further sentenced 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 to undergo S.I. for 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 1 month for the offence under Section 504 of the IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 by the informant Dr. Rajnikant Tirkey, Regional Director, Veterinary Department, Hazaribag on 28.06.2008 before the Officer-In-charge, SC/ST Police Station, Hazaribag.
The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant received a call on 28.06.2008 at around 09.00 a.m by a lady from Mobile No. 9334427209 that her dog is ill and he was supposed to visit him at her residence, which is situated at 5 th House from Circuit House, but the informant responded that at that time, he does not work as a Veterinary Doctor as he was engaged in administrative work, so he will send some other doctor for her help. Immediately, he called up Dr. Devendra Nath Dwivedi, the Mobile Veterinary Doctor, Hazaribagh over phone and informed for the treatment of her dog. But again, at around 09:05 a.m., the informant received a call from some male person who introduced himself as some Mishra and started abusing him by addressing his caste in filthy language and further threatened that if he is not going to give treatment to their dog, he is going to break his leg and hand and will also have to face dire consequences. After his phone got disconnected, the said female at around 09.08 a.m. started abusing him over the call.
4. On the basis of the written report, case was registered as SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 dated 28.06.2008 under Section 384,504 of the IPC read with Section 3(vi) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
5. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted the chargesheet against the appellant. Thereafter cognizance has been 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
6. Accordingly, the charge under Sections under Section 384,504 of the IPC read with Section 3(vi) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act were explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the allegations altogether four prosecution witnesses have been examined:
I. P.W.1(Devendra Nath Divedi) - He has stated in his examination-in-chief that the informant informed over the telephone to him to go and examine appellant's sick dog at fifth house located beyond the circuit house. He again stated that the accused and a lady came out and started abusing the informant by addressing him by his caste. He has further stated that he could not treat the dog as it was already dead. He has stated in his cross-examination that the appellant has not abused him rather he abused the informant. II. P.W.2(Dr. Ashok Kumar Arun) - He stated in his chief that he had gone to the residence of the informant for some official work. During that time the informant received a phone call and thereafter when the informant received phone call for the second time, he switched on the speaker of his mobile phone. This witness managed to hear that some person was abusing the informant, however, he could not identify as to who was abusing the informant. In his cross examination he has stated that he has no knowledge of any prior dispute between the informant and the accused. III. P.W.3(Dr. Rajnikant Tirkey) - He is the informant of the case who has stated in his examination-in-chief at Para 3 that he received a call from a female whose dog was ill and she was asking him to come at the earliest. The informant 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 told her that since he is holding administrative post, therefore, he would not be able to treat her dog and therefore, he is sending another doctor to her house. At around 09.05 a.m. again a male called him through mobile disclosing his name as Vijay Mohan Mishra and started abusing him in filthy language by taking his caste name. In his cross examination he has stated that he met with the accused Vijay Mohan Mishra earlier, who had abused him through mobile. However, he has stated that he did not record the call of the said Vijay Mohan Mishra while he was abusing.
IV. P.W.4(Naushad Alam) - He is the investigating officer of the case. He has stated that written complaint was made by the informant on the basis of which SC/ST Case No. 16 of2008 was registered by the then Officer-in-charge (SC/ST) Mr. Damodar Ram, which he identified marked as Ext. 2. The formal F.I.R. is marked as Ext. 3. He has stated in his cross examination that he never tried to take out the CDR of both the mobile number on which the informant received the call and from which the accused made the call. He has clearly stated in his cross- examination at para 12 that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was present at Bishungarh distributing article from Public Distribution System Shop whose License No. is 06/96 and 04/90.
8. The defence has also examined two witnesses as under:
I. D.W.1- Chaman Ram Paswan - He has admitted in his chief that on the date of occurrence he met the accused Vijay Mohan Mishra, who at that time was Marketing Officer (Panan Officer) Bishnugarh Block and his wife Shila Devi was having PDS licence. On the said day the accused was at 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 his house at 08:00A.M. and his wife Sheela Devi was in the forest for getting her cow grazed and admitted further that earlier thrice he visited the house of the accused so identified him. During cross-examination he admits that he did not receive any notice from the court and on request of the accused who brought him, he adduced his evidence. He further admits that he has PDS shop in the name of his wife, who is still alive which runs since 07:00 A.M. till 04:00 P.M. and on the date of occurrence at around 08:00 there was no customer though the accused visited his shop for five minutes for checking the documents but never returned back nor checked any of his document related to his shop for which he does not have any proof. He further admits that he has no knowledge that the accused is facing trial in the present case.
II. D.W.2-Vijay Mohan Mishra - He is the accused himself, who in his chief has admitted that he was appointed as Supply Inspector and joined his job in the year 1994 and since 1994 till 2008 no case was lodged against him. Further he admits that on 28.06.2008, he was posted as Marketing Officer at Bishnugarh Block and was also in-charge of Ichak and Churchu, therefore in the course of investigation, he went to Achal jamo Panchayat at Sheela Devi Public Distribution Shop where he reached at around 08:00 A.M. He further admits that he had no knowledge about the bearer of mobile no. 9334427209 on whom this case has been filed but as per true caller this number is shown by name 'Sanjay MR with whom he neither has any relation nor have any contact but still on affidavit he had filled the true caller detail which bears his signature. He further admits that he never had 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 talked to the informant though admits that the dog who died had been rewarded in the competition organized by Animal Husbandry Department. He further admits that I.O. of the present case has categorically and clearly mentioned that during the course of investigation the accused was at PDS shop of Tapeshwar and has verified the stock and its register. During cross-examination, he admits that since 2001 he stayed at his house at Sarley, Hazaribag and has habit of keeping the dog. At the time of occurrence, he had a dog and the informant some time used to visit his house for the treatment of his dog. Further he admits that on the date of occurrence his dog was ill which was informed to him by his wife, who never told him that whether she ever called the doctor for the treatment of their dog and admitted that it was not informed to him over telephone and by the time his wife along with their daughter took the dog to Pelawal hospital for treatment, it was already dead without getting any treatment. He further admits that they have facility of fixed phone at his house but did not have any mobile on the date of occurrence but admitted in para 18 of the cross- examination that in case of need he uses mobile phone of others though did not submit any document which he received from RTI regarding the fact that said phone belongs to some Sanjay MR.
9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions:
i. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vrs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 (2020) 10 SCC 710; in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 and in the case of Ashish Agrawal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1853, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per allegation since the conversation between the appellant and the informant was through telephone, as such, no SC/ST Act case is made out.
ii. The F.I.R was lodged against the phone number i.e. 9334427209 and not against any name and subsequently improvement has been made.
iii. The ingredient of Section 504 of the IPC is not made out as there is no allegation of provocation.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant, based on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that since the ingredients of the sections under which conviction has been made are absent, therefore conviction of the appellant even on the basis of materials on record, is bad in law.
12. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment of conviction but could not point out the ingredient, which is required for conviction under Section 504 of the IPC.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears the ingredient of Section 504 IPC is intentional insult that provokes someone, with the knowledge it may cause them to break the peace or commit another crime. The allegation that the appellant abused the informant by phone does not satisfy the ingredient as the allegation of provocation is missing and as such, the conviction of the appellant under Section 504 of the IPC is bad in law.
14. So far as conviction of the appellant under the SC/ST Act is concerned, since it was a telephonic conversation between the 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022 2026:JHHC:8812 appellant and the informant and as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, in such a situation, since the incidence did not occur within public view, therefore, no conviction under the SC/ST act is made out.
15. Considering the above legal proposition, this Court finds that conviction of the appellant under Section 504 of the IPC and under Section 3(vi) of the SC/ST Act is bad in law.
16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2012 arising out Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2245 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag is set aside.
17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.
18. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
19. Let the trial court record be sent back to the trial court.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 30th March, 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ___/____/2026 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 03 of 2022