Bombay High Court
Sugdeo Ramchandra Tayade vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(2)BOMCR54, 1994CRILJ2150
ORDER
1. Having suffered conviction under section 294 Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR Act for short) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 100/- under first count and rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/- under second count, imposed by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No. 81/90, the present appellant, an employee in the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana, has preferred this revision inter alia contending that his conviction more particularly under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act, is wholly unwarranted and that the so-called insulting words alleged to have been uttered by him did not amount in insult or attempt to insult on the ground of untouchability in relation to a member of a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was originally convicted in Criminal case No. 328/87 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana for offence under sections 448, 294 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act. In appeal, the conviction and sentence under section 294 Indian Penal Code and 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act was maintained, but the conviction under section 448 Indian Penal Code was set aside.
2. The facts which have given rise to the prosecution case are as follows :
The petitioner accused and the prosecution witnesses at the relevant time were serving in the office of District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana. On 15-9-1987, there was a general strike of the State Government employees and in pursuance of that strike, the petitioner accused had absented himself from the office. He expected all the colleagues working in that office to participate in the general strike. However, to his disappointment, the employees affiliated to CASTRIBE Union had not joined the said strike and the employees working in this office attached to the CASTRIBE Union were attending the office. This had indeed angered the petitioner accused. Now, coming to the story of the prosecution case, the accused entered the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana at about 1 p.m. and abused the employees working in that office and belonging to Mahar caste by hurling insults in most abusive language. To the details of the insulting words used. I shall come later on. But suffice it to say, that they were directed towards Mahar employees who had not joined the strike under the direction of the Castribe union. It does not appear to be in dispute that majority of the members of the Castribe Union are members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes. It is the prosecution story that Assistant Registrar, Pande was present in the office and he tried to persuade the accused not to give out abuses to the persons working in the office. But the said efforts proved to be in vain. Pande, therefore, informed the Police Station, Buldhana whereupon the police arrived at the office and carried the accused to the Police Station. The employees who were insulted presented the written complaint against the petitioner accused and after the routine investigation the accused was prosecuted in Crime No. 237/87 under sections 448, 294 Indian Penal Code and 7(1)(d) of PCR Act. The investigation comprised of statements of various witnesses and when the Court found prima facie case against the petitioner accused, the Court framed charge under the above sections.
3. The trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 Pralhad Vithoba at Ex. 9, P.W. 4 Keshav Arjun Arkh at Ex. 17 and P.W. 5 Janardhan Nathu Khare at Ex. 21, who were the employees and were working at the relevant time at the said office, and they uniformally reiterated that the accused gave abuses insulting the Mahar community people. There was also the evidence of Assistant Registrar Pande, who also adverted upon the unbecoming conduct of the petitioner accused in the office on the date of the accident. The learned Magistrate found this evidence trustworthy. The learned Magistrate also found that the abuses given by the petitioner accused did insult the employees on the ground of untouchability. The case of trespass was also upheld and the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner accused under various counts as indicated above.
4. The matter was carried in appeal and in Criminal Appeal No. 81/90, the learned Sessions Judge on the assessment of documentary and oral evidence came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of offence under section 294, Indian Penal Code and also under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act, but further found that the accused entered the office, since this was his place of employment. There was, therefore, no question of criminal trespass. The Court, therefore, acquitted the petitioner accused under section 448 of Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the conviction under section 294, Indian Penal Code and 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act.
5. It is against this conviction that the petitioner has approached this Court. Normally in revision as against the concurrent findings by the Courts below, there is little scope for interference. But when the argument by the learned advocate for the petitioner is comprehended in its correct perspective, it can be gathered that the claim of petitioner that there has been erroneous approach by the Courts below in construing the provisions of Section 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act is correct and the said argument does need elaborate consideration. She has stated that even if the evidence of the witnesses is accepted to be truthful and even if the witnesses who claim to be Mahars are abused, on no reckoning those abuses would amount to insult or attempt to insult on the ground of untouchability of a member of the Scheduled Caste. Her main plank or attack is that, in order to appreciate the insult on the ground of untouchability, the facts as they appear from the prosecution story will have to be considered. Those were the days when there was general strike of Government employees. This strike was sought to be sabotaged by the members of the Castribe Union. That Castribe Union comprises of Mahar members. It was expected that in furtherance of the benefit of all the government employees, all the employees unions should join the strike. But unfortunately this Castribe Union offered a dissent to this general request the refrained all its members from joining the strike. The petitioner being on strike certainly did not relish the idea of the particular group of employees behaving in breach of the terms of general strike, Castribe union is a union of Mahar members or members of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner was, therefore, seriously annoyed at his colleagues belonging to that union. It is in this background that the petitioner is said to have abused the members of Mahar community. But by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that his was an insult on the ground or untouchability. There was no question of untouchability being practised directly or even remotely. The abuses were prompted against Mahar employees not in furtherance of any practice of untouchability, but because they had disassociated from the general strike of employees. In that background, it cannot be said that the insult was on the ground of untouchability.
6. The learned advocate also cited some cases which support her point of view and she has therefore contended that even before probing into the details of the story, the question of practising untouchability does not at all arise and that the conviction under section 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act is not at all warranted.
7. Before probing into the evidence, it can be justifiably said that the background which has been made up even on the basis of the prosecution story is that, these were the days of general strike of Government employees. Undisputedly, the Castribe union members had not joined the general strike and they were working in their respective offices. It would be also pertinent to note that the employees working in the office were by and large Mahar in majority. Abusing them as Mahar is not coupled with any practice of untouchability to the details of which I shall come later on. It was an expression of anger and hatred against those Union members. Now turning upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution witness No. 1 Pralhad Vithoba has deposed at Ex. 9 that he was attached to the office of District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana and on 15-9-1987, he was working as the Senior Clerk. He was a member of the Castribe Union and was on duty along with P.W. Arakh, P.W. Taslimkhan Karimkhan, P.W. Khare. Some of the officers including the Assistant Registrar were present in the office. So also one Kale was present. The accused was the Senior Clerk in that office, but was absent from duty on account of the strike. At about 1 p.m. accused came to the office and started abusing as follows :
"Maharano baher ya. Thumhi phar majale. Tumchya aya bahinina javato."
(Mahars come out. You are very proud I shall assault sexually your mothers and sisters).
He has also deposed that the accused repeated those abuses more than once. Assistant Registrar Pande tried to pacify him, but the petitioner accused refused to oblige him. Hence the police were called. These witnesses prepared the report at Ex. 10 and the said was presented to the Police Station. He has deposed that he was annoyed due to abuses given to Mahar people. During the course of evidence, he has tendered the Caste Certificate showing him as Mahar at Ex. 19. In the cross-examination he has deposed that he had obtained the certificate from Executive Magistrate or Tahsildar, but has deposed that although he is Mahar, he is the follower of Buddhism. Regarding the utterances given by the petitioner, he has stated that the petitioner accused was speaking in intelligible terms which he could not understand. He is the Class III officer and has stated that the accused started abusing the employees present right from the entrance steps of the office. He has also admitted that accused never abused any specific person by name, but addressed generally all the Mahar members as follows :
"Maharano thumhi laye majale. Tumchya aya bahinina javato. Thumhi baher ya. Thumchi soye pahato.
(Mahars you are very proud. I shall assault sexually your mothers and sisters. You come out and you will be suitably dealt with).
However, police did not record his statement. Further details are also furnished by him in his evidence when he states that accused abused like, "Mahare bandukale laye majale thumhi baher ya thumhala pahun ghato".
(Mahars Muslims are very proud. You come out. I shall see you).
Now these are the words which are said to have been uttered by the present petitioner. This witness has categorically said at the end of his cross-examination as follows :
"It is my opinion that accused was enraged as we have not participated in the strike."
8. P.W. 4 Keshav Arakh who also claims to be Mahar has deposed that accused entered the office and gave abuses as follows :
"Bhosadichya ho mahare majale. Thumchya mayala jhava. Sawalati gheta ane gadar."
(You Mahars have become arrogant. I shall rape your mothers. You take concessions. You are traitors).
He has stated that Pande Assistant Registrar was sitting on the table. They all tried to pacify the petitioner accused. P.W. Pande asked the accused to go out, but accused continued to stand in the Verandah and was giving abuses. Police were summoned and accused was taken to the Police Station. This witness has also tendered Caste Certificate at Ex. 18. In the cross-examination, he has stated that accused abused them while inside the office. He testified to have signed report Ex. 10 along with other witnesses.
9. P.W. 5 Janardan Nathu Khare, who is also Mahar by caste, has deposed in the same tone that accused entered in the verandah and abused :
"Mahare laye majale".
(Mahars you have become arrogant) Assistant Registered Pande asked him to go out, but accused returned and refused to go out and therefore, the police were called. He has stated that P.W. Jadhav and Arakh lodged the report about the accused. On account of the abuses, Khaire was also annoyed. He has stated that he signed Ex. 22 the first information report. He had carried the report Ex. 10 signed by Jadhav and Arakh and tendered the same before the Police. In the cross-examination, he goes on to say that :
"Mahare laye majalet".
(Mahars have become arrogant) were the only abuses given by the petitioner accused. He did not give any more abuses. According to him, Police never recorded his statement about the incident. He has stuck to the abuses :
"Mahare laye majalet".
(Mahar have become arrogant) as having been uttered by the petitioner accused. It seems that P.W. 3 Laxman Ramappa, P.W. 6 Vishwanath Kale and P.W. 7 Tasleenkhan Karimkhan did not support the prosecution story and that is why they were declared hostile.
10. P.W. 8 Prabhakar Pande, Assistant Registrar has deposed that on the day of the incident, he was in the office and that there was general strike. But as the officers had not participated in the strike, he was in attendance at the office. At the time of the incident, he was attending to the telephone in connection with information about the attendance of the employees. He saw accused entering the office and shouting loudly, abusing the persons who were attending the office. He has stated that as he was disturbed by the shouting of the accused, he told accused to leave the office and not to create disturbance. Accused was not in mood to listen to him and in consequence he got up from the chair and led the accused out of the office. He had also deposed that accused was cursing in obscene and sarcastic language the employees who were on duty. He has also deposed that the accused started abusing right from the verandah. In the first instance, he gave abuses like, "Bhekad, Gandu, Nadan, Halkat". In the cross-examination, he has stated that accused was addressing the attending employees as follows :
"Thumhi gadar ahate. Samphaphode ahate. Gandu ahate."
(You are traitors, you are sabotaging strike. You are stupid).
It would be evident from the evidence of Pande that accused was rendering abuses to the employees who were in attendance and as stated above, those were the members who belong to Castribe Union which had not participated in the general strike. It would be also clear from the evidence of Pande that the accused had entered the office and was abusing the attending employees, because they did not join strike. Thus the members who present in the office were abused and insulted.
11. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge have chosen to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 Pralhad Vithal, P.W. 4 Keshao Arakh and P.W. 5 Janardhan Nathu Khare. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that if the evidence of Pande is considered in the background of the details given by the above witnesses, it would be clear that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the above witnesses and the Assistant Registrar Pande. Pande does not refer to any of the abuses about Mahars. However, it would be abundantly clear that Pande informed the Police. The report Ex. 10 which was drawn up contemporaneously with the incident, also reflects upon the nature of the abuses given by the petitioner. It would be therefore proper to hold that the evidence of P.W. 1 Pralhad Vithoba, P.W. 4 Keshav Arakh and P.W. 5 Janardhan Khare, clearly shows that the abuses like "Mahars you have become arrogant" were given by the accused. It can also be held that the abuses related to giving threats to Mahars.
12. It will have, however, to be examined whether these abuses would be on the ground of untouchability. As indicated, the petitioner was prompted to give abuses to these persons as "Mahars you have become arrogant" because the castribe union had not joined the strike. It would, however, be mentioned that although Pralhad Vithoba practices Buddhism, it cannot be said that he has converted himself as Buddhist. Apart, even if the witnesses deposed that they were abused as "Mahars you have become arrogant" it is difficult to conclude that they were on the ground of untouchability. In this regard, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1991 Cri LJ 2954 Phulsingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh has dealt at length as to what is meant by insult on the ground of untouchability. In that case, the abuses were given by one appellant Phulsingh to one Balla a Chamar (cobbler) as follows :
"Chamra mare virudha report kyo ki mai tumse manhani ke 5000/- rupaye lunga."
There was also abuses given by the same Phulsingh to one Harijan lady as follows :
"Chamara bhosadi ke jagah chod dena nahi to goli se maar dunga."
Likewise, the same person Phulsingh had abused one another lady as follows :
"Yahase chamriya nikali to lat marange tare bap ka rasta nahi hai."
The Court observed in following words :
"The question is, what is the test to determine whether the insult was or was not "on the ground of untouchability" ? It is possible in my view to conceive of a test. The test is to ask the question, whether insult would have taken place irrespective of the fact whether the victim was or was not a member of the Scheduled Caste. If yes, the insult was insult simpliciter outside the ambit of Clause (d). On the other hand, if insult had taken place only because the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste and it would not have taken place if he had been of higher caste, then insult was insult on the ground of untouchability. Another rough and ready test, though not very infallible, would be to ask the question whether insult was part of personal quarrel which took place between a person of higher caste and a member of Scheduled Caste, or was the insult offered in a cool and studied manner in the absence of any quarrel. In the first situation, it would be insult on the ground of untouchability".
By way of illustration, it has been stated, if the member of the Scheduled Caste is using a public bathing ghat and if higher caste Hindu insults him and evicts him from that ghat saying that the ghat is reserved for higher caste people, that is a case of insult on the ground of untouchability. In the same incident it is held that if the clothes of the higher caste Hindu are trampled upon by the untouchable or by the Scheduled Caste member and that if the higher caste Hindu calls that person as Chamar, that would be a case of insult simpliciter of a member of the Scheduled Caste, but not an insult on the ground of untouchability. The further illustration can be cited by reference to 1985 Mah LR 341 : (1986 Cri LJ 876) in the case of Sou Suhasini Baban Kate v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the petitioner had insulted the member of the Scheduled Caste viz. a Member of the cobbler family by calling him a Cobbler by caste and that the said cobbler should leave the locality immediately as all the residents belong to Maratha community. This was held to be practising untouchability punishable under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act. Now, in this case, it would be evident that whoever transpired in the nature of abuses was on account of the Mahar class not participating in the general strike. The petitioner accused was annoyed and showered abuses are (sic) in relation to any untouchability practised by the petitioner accused. It would be thus clear that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under section 7(1)(d) of PCR Act.
13. However, the evidence of the above witnesses would clearly establish that the petitioner accused offered insults to the prosecution witnesses by giving utterances of obscene nature. He called those persons as "Mahars Lai Majlele Aahet". These abuses were rendered in the office and hence it can be safely said that the petitioner has committed offence under section 294, Indian Penal Code. The learned advocate for the petitioner accused has not been able to dislodge this position. She has not been able to suggest that whatever was spoken by the petitioner did not amount to obscene utterances. It was improper on the part of the petitioner accused to have uttered words like "Mahar Majlele Aaheti. Bhekad Aahet", and in that light I feel that the conviction of the present petitioner accused under section 294 Indian Penal Code is to be upheld.
14. On the question of sentence, the learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is about 54 years old. He has been in service for long. Any sentence of fine or imprisonment would land him in dismissal from the department. He has a large family to maintain and his dismissal would operate extreme hardship on the members of his family. She has also stated that this was the first offence committed by the petitioner. Petitioner repented and hence she has claimed that the petitioner who is not a seasoned criminal, should be accorded the benefit of probation. I feel that offence committed is of rendering abuses. This is the first offence of the petitioner. It was committed in the heat of anger. There was a feeling that Castribe Union was acting prejudicially to the interest of Government Employees. This is a case wherein lenient view should be taken. Hence the order under section 4 sub-section (1) of Probation of Offenders Act is warranted.
15. All said and done, the name of the Castribe Union is sallied by the petitioner. General impression is generated that the attitude of that Union is one of treachery. The general reputation of the Union is certainly damaged. Hence I feel that the petitioner accused should be directed to pay Rupees 10,000/- to the Castribe Union. Accordingly the following order.
16. Appeal partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is set aside and he is acquitted of that charge. His conviction under Section 294, Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is directed that he be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a personal Bond for Rs. 5,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount for a period of one year and meanwhile he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall receive sentence when called upon during such period. It is made clear that this order under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act shall not affect the service of the petitioner accused. The petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the CASTRIBE Union, Buldhana, within a period of four weeks and tender the receipt of this Court. The undertaking in this behalf is recorded and the petitioner shall comply the same. The payment shall be made through the District and Sessions Judge, Buldhana, who shall obtain the Stamped receipt and forward the same to the this Court for record.
17. Appeal partly allowed.