Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) As per the oral report dated 03.12.2004, complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.2500/- from Raju Sadar on 13.12.2003. The loan was to carry an interest.

First informant gave one blank Stamp Paper to appellant- Raju, having his thumb impression and also thumb impression of his wife. As per the agreement, first informant used to pay Rs.175/- per month towards interest and it was decided that the principal amount should be repaid at the time of Diwali festival. It is also stated in the FIR that on 02.11.2004 at 7 O'clock, Raju came to his house and asked 4 apeal636.05.odt him to accompany to the cattle shed and asked him as to what arrangement he has made for repayment of money. Upon that, it was replied by the first informant that he is ready to repay and will arrange for the same by 20 th. However, on that Raju asked him that he should give tin- sheets of his house at that time only. As per the oral report, when he refused to agree for the same, Raju started beating him with slaps and kicks. First informant got himself rescued from the clutches of appellant-Raju and he started running. Thereafter, Raju called his brother and asked him to catch the first informant by using abusive language in the name of his caste. He was caught by hands and legs by Suresh Sadar, Bharat Sadar and Ganesh Sadar and they used abusive language in the name of caste. According to the FIR, this incident has occurred on road. With these allegations in the FIR, the offence was registered.

11 apeal636.05.odt

12. Though it is the evidence of Devidas (PW1) and Vimal (PW2) that their signatures-thumb impressions were obtained by appellant no.1-Raju on blank stamp paper, it is not their case and/or their statement on oath during the course of trial that at any point of time, appellant-Raju misused and/or tried to misuse blank stamp paper duly signed by these two prosecution witnesses.

13. Evidence of Devidas would reveal that on 02.11.2004, at 7 O'clock in the morning, appellant no.1-Raju came to his house and he took him to his Kotha, which is away from the house of the complainant. This aspect is also corroborated by Vimal (PW2). According to version of Devidas, at Kotha, appellant no.1 inquired about repayment of loan, on that Devidas assured that he will repay the same by 20.11.2004. However, as per the evidence, that time, appellant no.1-Raju asked for tin-sheets of his house. On refusal, according to Devidas (PW1), he was assaulted by Raju by fist and kick blows. It is not the version of Devidas that assault on the part of appellant no.1 was noticed by anybody. Further, it is not the version of Devidas that at the time of assault, appellant no.1 used any abusive language in the name of caste. As per the 12 apeal636.05.odt evidence of Devidas, somehow he got himself free from the clutches of appellant no.1 and started running. As per the version of Devidas, at that time, accused no.2-Suresh was coming from the house and he got assaulted by Suresh by using abusive language in the name of caste. Thereafter, all the appellants started beating him and also used abusive language in the name of caste. Devidas (PW1) claimed in his evidence that the incident of beating and using of abusive language was noticed by his wife Vimal (PW2) and Jaishree (PW3). Even these two prosecution witnesses corroborate the complainant.

In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, accused used abusive language against the complainant when he was standing near car which was parked at the gate of premises. Paragraph 34 of the said judgment reads as under:

"34. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that

17 apeal636.05.odt any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1."

17. From the aforesaid two decisions and many others, which I am refraining myself from mentioning in the present judgment just to avoid unnecessary bulkiness to the present judgment, it is clear that there is a distinction between "Public Place" and "Public View".

18. If offensive language is used even at a private place and the said offensive language is audible to the passers-by or the said incident of using abusive language and assault on the private place is visible to the public at large then definitely the accused will have to be convicted under penal provision of the Atrocities Act, because though the act is committed at the private place, it is committed within public view. In my opinion the soul of clause