Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jasrath Singh And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ1915, 2005(4)MPHT390, 2006 CRI. L. J. 1915, (2006) 37 ALLINDCAS 457 (MPG), 2006 (37) ALLINDCAS 457, (2005) 4 MPHT 390, (2005) 4 MPLJ 363, (2006) 1 RECCRIR 272, (2006) 1 CRIMES 767, (2005) 4 CURCRIR 544
JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to six months R.I. Each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in Special Case No. 77/2001 vide judgment dated 21-11-2002 passed by Special Judge, Vidisha. Against which they have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. As per prosecution story, on 13-11-2000 at about 11 a.m. in the forenoon at Police Station Anandpur Lalliram (P.W. 1) lodged the report that in the last night on 12-11-2000 at about 9 p.m., at Village Bapcha he was taking a meeting of the members of the Scheduled Castes at the door of Lalliram (P.W. 3) of Bapcha. The meeting was organised on behalf of the Scheduled Castes Sangharsh Morcha, in connection with organising a demonstration of Tehsil level. In the report it was mentioned that Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5), Ramratan (P.W. 4) and Lalliram Ahirwar (P.W. 3) were also present in the meeting. The appellants came at the place of meeting and started abusing them and insulted them and also intimidated them by pronouncing their castes and thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x). Due to the abuses some persons in the meeting became furious but they were persuaded and after pursuation appellants left the place and thereafter on the next day FIR was lodged, on which crime was registered, matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed. During trial, appellants abjured their guilt and their defence was that due to enmity because of the Panchayat elections they have been implicated falsely.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. During trial, Lalliram s/o Dhannalal (P.W. 1), Lalliram s/o Amar (P.W. 3), Ramratan (P.W. 4) and Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5) were examined to support the prosecution case. Lalliram (P.W. 1) has deposed that he was taking meeting of Harijan Samaj in the night at about 9 p.m. He is the Incharge of Anusuchit Jati Sangharsh Morcha, Sironj, Lateri. When he was taking meeting, appellants came there and started abusing them and said that "Lalliram Chamru He, Chamar Panchayat Kar Raha He Aur Chamar Panchayat Karke Kya Karega -- Gali Di". Some of the members of the meeting became furious and thereafter the appellants were persuaded and they left the place. In the cross- examination, he says that for the first time he had gone to Village Bapcha for taking the meeting but he does not know the name of other persons, those who were participating in the meeting. There was no light at the time of taking meeting and only lamp (Chimney) light was available. He has further admitted that he used to support the candidates of reserve seat in the Panchayat election. The members of Bagdi community have not been included in the Scheduled Castes but they are getting forged certificates and at Village Bapcha on most of the seats members of Baghel community have won the election and member of his community have lost. He had also filed a writ petition in the High Court and had also made complaint about the Anandpur Panchayat. Aarambai Baghel was elected as Sarpanch but on his action she has been removed from the post. From this statement it is clear that Lalliram (P.W. 1) is having caste based enmity against the members of Baghel community. He has admitted that both the appellants are the members of Baghel community.
5. Lalliram (P.W. 3) has only stated about Chamar Panchayat and has not stated that any abuses were given to complainant Lalliram s/o Dhannalal. He has stated that in the meeting they were discussing the subject that members of Baghel community became members of Scheduled Castes and he has stated that both the appellants came there but only Jasrath Singh had told him that "Chamar Panchayat Ho Rahi He, Chamru Meeting Karne Lag Gaye Hein " and they had also abused and after pursuation both went away from that place. This witness is working on the post of Shikshakarmi. Prior to this he had contested elections and he was Chairman of Bahujan Samaj Party. He had also contested the election of Bapcha Panchayat for two- three times. In 1995 he was also candidate for Janpad Panchayat but he lost all the elections. He has admitted that the members of Baghel castes are occupying the posts in Panchayat and Janpad and they have also won the election for the key post in the Panchayat and are occupying post of Shikshakarmi. He has admitted that he used to hate the members of the Baghel Community.
6. Similarly, Ramratan (P.W. 4) has stated that the appellants gave abuses to the meeting not to complainant Lalliram. He has supported the prosecution version but in the cross-examination he has admitted that there are 100 houses of the members of Baghel family in his village and there are only 25 houses of Harijan Samaj. He has admitted that in the meeting subject of discussion was that the members of Baghel community are joining the Harijan Community and some action should be taken against the members of Baghel community and thereafter he left the meeting.
7. Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5) has stated that the appellants have also said that 'Yaha Chamar Panchayat Ho Rahi He". The appellants are the members of Jadone Baghel community. He has not stated that any abuses were given either to complainant or to any member of the community or to the Panchayat. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he does not know the name of the place where meeting was arranged and how many persons were present in the meeting. He has denied that Lalliram has not contested any Panchayat election and he has admitted that there are 60-70 houses of Harijan Samaj in the village and 100-150 houses of Baghel Samaj. He has admitted that he is the members of Janpad.
8. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5) has not stated about the use of abusing language by the appellants. Though he has also exaggerated his statement and has stated that the appellants had threatened to kill them but he has not stated anything about giving abuses nor he has stated that any of the appellants had abused, insulted or humiliated either to the members of the meeting or to the complainant Lalliram. Lalliram Ahirwar (P.W. 3) and Ramratan (P.W. 4) have admitted that there is enmity between the members of the Bagdi community and Harijan community in the village and he used to hate the members of Baghel community. They have admitted that the appellants are also the members of Baghel community. The other witnesses have not supported the statement of Lalliram (P.W. 1) that they abused him and there is no consistency in the prosecution evidence.
9. All the witnesses have stated that the meeting was organised at the Delhan of Prabhulal at between 8-9 p.m. in the night and no source of light was available. It has come in the evidence that the appellants are the members of Baghel community and there is rivalry between them. It has also come in the evidence that members of Baghel community are obtaining forged certificates and showing themselves to be the members of Hatijan community and they have admitted that the subject matter of the meeting was that the members of Baghel community are joining Harijan community and some action should be taken against them. Lalliram (P.W. 3) has categorically stated that he used to hate the members of Baghel community to which the appellants belong. If the prosecution evidence is examined in the light of the aforesaid evidence that there is rivalry and caste-based hatred and struggle between the parties then it would be clear that this case is the outcome of said rivalry.
10. To constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act it is necessary that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The words "intentional", "insult" and "humiliation" have been used in this Section but they have not been defined in the Act. As per Webster Dictionary, the word "intent" means having the mind bent on an object, "intentional" means done purposely. The term "intentional" has been used in relation to act done by or with intention, which means to do wrong with intent. As per Law Lexicon, a person who, by his declaration, act or omission, had caused another to belief a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, must be held to have done so "intentionally" within the meaning of the Statute. As per Webster, "to insult" is to treat with abuse, insolence, or contempt; to commit an indignity upon, as to call the main liar. A gross indignity offered to another whether by act or by word is known as "insult". An insult is an indolent attack. It is more easy to imagine an affront where none was intended than an insult. As per Webster, in common parliance the word "humiliation" means to lower the dignity of, painfully humbling, the state of being humble and free from pride. As per Oxford dictionary "humiliate" means to cause a person to feel disgrace, humble condition or attitude of mind. In the background of the definition of the aforesaid words, to prove the offence under the aforesaid section, it is necessary that there must be an element of intentionally committing the insult or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and for that the evidence of the witness should be consistent and reliable. When there is caste-based rivalry between the parties and hatred against the members of appellant community, the evidence has to he scrutinised carefully and there should be very cogent and independent evidence of causing insult intentionally. So far as this case is concerned, there is no consistent evidence on record regarding intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5), who is a member of Janpad and was present in the meeting appears to be a responsible person has deposed that they have said "Yaha Chamar Panchayat Ho Rahi He" and these words are neither offending nor it can be said that they were told with the intention of insult or they come within the purview of intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. Merely calling a person from the caste name without the proof of any intention of intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating will also not constitute the offence referred under the section. Moreso, none of the witnesses have deposed that why the abuses were given, whether there was any wordy quarrel between them and it has also not been explained that how the dispute arose between the parties and who initiated it.
11. Thus, after appreciating the evidence on record it is clear that no case of commission of any crime is made out against the appellants. There is no consistent evidence against them about the intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. The evidence of Lalliram (P.W. 1) is not corroborated by other witnesses and the evidence of other witnesses is rather damaging to the prosecution case, as the witnesses have admitted that they use to hate the members of appellant community and their relations with the members of Baghel community are not cordial. In fact, all the prosecution witnesses are members of one community, they are interested witnesses in one community and they have admitted caste based enmity. Thus, in the light of such an evidence and under the facts and circumstances of the case the possibility of falsely implicating the appellants also can not be ruled out on the basis of caste hatred and rivalry. Prosecution has not examined any independent witness of the village to prove the allegation. Apart from the evidence of caste hatred evidence of enmity between the parties over Panchayat election is also available on record.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find that any offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the appellants. The Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of caste based hatred and rivalry and also enmity over Panchayat election between the parties.
13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of Trial Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges. Appellant No. 1 is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. Appellant No. 2 is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.