Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Ujagar Dhimar on 13 March, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1034/1998
(Single Bench : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain)
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police Station Pawai
District Panna (MP) Appellant
Vs.
Ujagar Dhimar, S/o. Barelal Dhimar
aged 27 years,
r/o. Village Narayanpura
Police Station Pawai
District Panna (MP) Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent/accused.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(13.3.2012 ) The appellant/State preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.12.1997 passed by Special Judge, Panna in Special Case No.67/97 whereby respondent/accused Ujagar has been acquitted of the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 9.3.1997 at about 5 P.M at village Narayanpura of Police Station Pawai, Panna, altercation took place between sister of accused and Bhaiyalal and Videshi, both sons of complainant Durraiya Chamar on the point of sitting on the bullock cart but after 2 intervention, the matter was resolved. Thereafter, on the same day at about 5 P.M, when complainant Durraiya Chamar was sitting in his courtyard alongwith his wife and children, accused Ujagar armed with Lathi entered into his house, abused and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the accused made an attack on the head of Chanda (PW.4) by Lathi and blood came out from her head and she fell to the ground. The accused gave another Lathi blow on the hand of Chanda. When complainant Durraiya Chamar came to rescue Chanda, the accused also gave Lathi blow on his hands. Complainant Durraiya Chamar shouted and came out from his house. The accused Ujagar abused him by calling ''CHAMAR''. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot. On hearing the hue and cry, the villagers assembled on the spot. Report (Ex.P/1) of this incident was lodged by complainant Durraiya Chamar (PW.3) at Police Station, Pawai, on 9.3.1997 and crime under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was registered against the respondent/accused.
3. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence praying that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and the respondent examined two witnesses in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court did not find the respondent/accused guilty under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506- 3 B of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and acquitted him from the aforesaid offences, hence this appeal at the instance of the State after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
5. Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution amply proved the required ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He prayed that the respondent should be punished.
6. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial Court committed any error in acquitting the respondent from the charge under Sections 323, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Chanda, PW4, who is an injured witness, stated that her son Videshi was sitting in the bullock cart of Ujagar Dhimar. Respondent's brothers and sister quarreled with her son Videshi. They beat him. She went there and interferred. Thereafter, they went their home. After sometime respondent came to her home with 'lathi' and 'lohangi'. She was sitting in the courtyard with her children. Her husband was also present 4 there. Respondent/accused assaulted her with 'lathi' blows, she got injury on her head and she fell down. She became unconscious. Accused also inflicted injury on her right hand. She also stated that the respondent had also beaten her husband by 'lathi' then her husband cried and went out. She clearly stated in her examination-in-chief that the respondent did not say any word about her caste and he did not abuse her. She was treated by Dr.Choudhary.
9. Durraiya Chamar, PW3, who is the husband of Chanda, PW4, supported the statement of his wife Chanda and stated that respondent's brother and sister were beating his son Videshi, his wife Chanda went to protect Videshi. After that when he was sitting in his courtyard with his wife and children, the respondent came there, abused him and hit his wife Chanda with 'lathi' blows. She fell down. Accused also caused injury by 'lathi' on her hand. He further stated that he requested the accused that he is poor man, therefore, do not do so. The respondent also abused and threatened to kill him by saying ''HkkslMh okys pejk rqEgs tku ls ekj nsaxs''. He started weeping and the respondent ran away. Mijaji Chamar was present outside. He saw the respondent running away. The complainant further stated that thereafter he went to Sarpanch but he did not meet him. Then he went to the Police Station, Pawai, with his wife by the tractor of Rajaram Tiwari and lodged the report , Ex.P/1. The police sent him and his wife Chanda for medical examination.
5
10. Mijaji Lal, PW7, a hostile witness, stated that Chandabai asked him that Ujagar Dhimar beat her. He also stated that he saw the injuries on her head and right hand.
11. Virendra Singh Parihar, PW1, the then J.S.I. Police Station Pawai, stated that on 9.3.1997 Durraiya Chamar had lodged the report, Ex.P/1. He sent Durraiya Chamar and his wife Chanda for medical examination with memo, Ex.P/2 and P/3.
12. Dr.M.L.Choudhary (PW.2) medically examined complainant Durraiya Chamar (PW.3), prepared the report (Ex.P/2) and found following injuries on his person:-
''(1) Abrasion with surround swelling 3cm x 2cm on elbow of his left hand.
(2) Contusion 7cm x 5cm on wrist of his right hand.
(3) Contusion 7cm x 4cm on left abdomen.'' The doctor opined that the injury Nos. 1 and 3 were simple in nature and could be caused within 12 hours. Injury No. 2 was bone injury and X-ray was advised. All the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.
13. He also on the same day medically examined Chanda (PW.4), prepared the report (Ex.P/3) and found following injuries on her person:-
''(1) Lacerated wound 9cm x 5cm x 3cm skull on frontal.
(2) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 3cm x 1½cm on right upper arm.
(3) Contusion 10cm x 5cm just above right 6 elbow on right scapular region.
(4). Contusion 13cm x 7cm on right
scapular region''.
The doctor opined that the injury Nos. 2 and 4 were simple in nature whereas X-ray was advised for injury Nos 1 and 2.
Injury Nos. 1 and 3 were bone injuries. Injuries could be caused within 12 hours. All the injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.
14. The victim Durraiya immediately lodged the report, Ex.P/1, at Police Station Pawai which was proved by him and Virendra Singh Parihar, PW1. He and his wife Chandabai were sent for medical examination on the same day.
15. There is ample evidence to prove that respondent/accused beat the complainant Durraiya and his wife Chanda and caused them injuries. There are no material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses about the injuries inflicted on the complainant and his wife by the respondent. There is nothing to disbelieve the statements of injured Durraiya Chamar, PW3, and Chandabai, PW4. Their evidence further find support from the medical evidence. Thus, the evidence on the record proves the offence under section 452 and 323 of the I.P.C. against the respondent.
16. It is found that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the relevant evidence in proper perspective and committed error in acquitting the respondent of the charges under 7 sections 452 and 323 of the I.P.C. Therefore, the respondent Ujagar Dhimar is held guilty under sections 452 and 323 of the I.P.C.
17. As far as the charge under sections 294 and 506-B of the I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, Chandabai (PW4) clearly stated that respondent did not say anything about her caste and did not abuse her. Thus, the statement of complainant Durraiya Chamar, PW3, and that of Chandabai, PW4, who is the wife of complainant, are contradictory. Therefore, it is not clearly established that the respondent abused and threatened to kill him. It is also not established that the respondent Ujagar Dhimar uttered word "chamar" with intent to humiliate, intimidate or insult the complainant of his being a member of the Scheduled Caste.
18. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge did not commit any error in acquitting the respondent under sections 294 and 506-B of the I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of the Act.
19. In view of the above discussion, the acquittal of the respondent under sections 294 and 506-B of the I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of the Act is maintained but the acquittal of the respondent under sections 452 and 323 of the I.P.C. is set aside.
20. Consequently, this appeal succeeds partly and is allowed accordingly.
8
21. After holding the aforesaid conviction against the respondent/accused and before imposing the punishment for the same, this Court has to consider another argument of respondent's counsel advanced that the respondent should be punished with fine only.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant/State does not oppose the prayer of the respondent counsel.
23. It is true that the respondent being the first offender suffered mental agony of the present litigation for more than 14 years. It appears that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. In these circumstances the respondent/accused is punished with the jail sentence already undergone (1 day) and fine of Rs.500 in respect of offence punishable under section 452 I.P.C. and in respect of offence punishable under section 323 of the I.P.C. fine amount of Rs.500 is imposed on the respondent accused. The fine amount be deposited in the trial court within three months failing which he shall undergo S.I. for one month.
24. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.
25. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with record to the trial court for information and compliance.
(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE HS 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1034/1998 The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ujagar Dhimar J U D G M E N T Post for:- .3.2012 (Smt. Vimla Jain) J U D G E .3.2012