Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu @ Rameshwar & Ors. vs State Of M.P. Judgement Given By: ... on 18 July, 2013
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE G.S. SOLANKI
Criminal Appeal No.647/1996
Kallu @ Rameshwar and another
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri H.S. Dubey with Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocates for
the appellants.
Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(18.07.2013) Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.1996 passed by Special Judge, Sehore in Special Case No.233/1994, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one month.
2.. The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that complainant Shivcharan belongs to Scheduled Caste community and appellants belong to non-Scheduled Caste community. As per prosecution on 18.02.1994, at about 8.00 2 P.M. when complainant Shivcharan going towards the beetal shop of Mahesh for purchasing beedi, at this juncture, appellant Kallu @ Ramcharan restrained him and abused him and told that he always supporting Rambux, at the same time co-accused Dharan Singh reached on the spot, who caught hold the complainant and appellant Kallu @ Ramcharan assaulted him and fled away from the spot. Complainant lodged the report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station Mandi, District Sehore. He has been sent for medical examination. Dr. Umesh Kumar Shrivastava (P.W.-1) examined him and found that one lacerated wound and one abrasion on his body.
3. During investigation, appellants were arrested and charge sheeted before Special Judge. Special Judge/Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
4. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
5. After appreciating the evidence on record, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that complainant Shivcharan himself admitted that appellants have assaulted him because he has not supported him in the Panchayat elections, therefore, the incident took place due to previous enmity. He further submitted that mere 3 quarreling is not amount to humiliation of the complainant. In these circumstances, the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective and prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against them. In alternatively, he prayed that appellants may be sentenced for fine amount only.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have perused the impugned judgment alongwith other material on record.
9. Complainant Shivcharan (P.W.-2) has admitted that he is unable to understand that why appellants have assaulted him. He further stated that it may be possible that perhaps he has been assaulted because he has not supported the appellants in Panchayat election, though he stated that appellants have abused him at the time of aforesaid incident. But no specific word of abuse has find place in the FIR (Ex.P-2). Ramkishan (P.W.-3) and Ramesh (P.W.-4) supported the version of complainant that appellants assaulted the complainant by a stick. This fact is further supported by medical report (Ex.P-1) and the statement of Dr. Umesh Kumar Shrivastava (P.W.-1).
4
10. In these circumstances, it is proved on record that appellant Dharam Singh caught hold the complainant and appellant Kallu @ Ramcharan assaulted him by stick. Therefore, he sustained simple injury, but at the same time, during aforesaid incident, if appellants uttered the name of his caste, same is not amount to humiliation of the complainant.
11. On careful scanning of aforesaid evidence on record, the trial court committed an illegality in recording the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, however, a minor offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. is proved on record against the appellants.
12. Thus, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is hereby set aside. Instead appellants are convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. As far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place in the year 1994 and 19 years have already elapsed, no useful purpose would be served by sending appellants again to the jail, the ends of justice would be met, if they have been sentenced for the amount of Rs.500/-, which have already been deposited.
13. Thus, appellants are convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/-, which is already deposited.
5
15. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
16. Record of the trial Court be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment immediately for compliance and necessary action.
(G.S. Solanki) Judge gn