1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR
Cr.R.No. 1514/2011
Bansilal and others
Vs.
State of M.P
For the Applicants : Shri R.K.Nagar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Smt. Nirmala Nayak, GA.
ORDER
(11/11/2011)
Per : U.C.Maheshwari J.
The applicants/accused, have filed this revision being aggrieved by the
order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short `the Act’), Jabalpur in Special Case
No.34/11 framing the charges against each of the applicants for the offence of
section 294/34, 323/34 of the IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 26.4.2011 on
receiving the information of some quarrel and incident from the complainant
Gend Singh R/o Uchehra at Police Station Kundam, District Jabalpur, the same
was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha No.860. On holding the preliminary
inquiry, it was revealed that some cognizable offence has been committed, on
which, the FIR was registered as Crime No.82/11 against the applicants for the
offence of section 294,323,506 and 34 of the IPC and section 3(i)(x) of the Act.
As per averment of it on dated 23.4.2011 said complainant Gend Singh was in
need of tractor for bringing his grain from his village to some place, for which, at
the fare of Rs.300/-, he hired the tractor from applicant No.1 Bansilal. On the
way, near Bus stand Kundam, said Bansilal refused to bring his grain on his
2
tractor and returned the sum of the fare. Thereafter, the complainant hired the
tractor of one Panchamlal Chakrawarty for the same, on which, the applicants
abused the complainant on account of his caste “Gond” and also to said
Chakrawarty and Preeti and also beaten them. On lodging the report at PS
Kundam, the same was recorded in the Rojnamcha sanha No.860 of dated
23.4.2011 and thereafter the victims were sent to hospital, where on medical
examination, their MLC reports were prepared. Subsequent to it, on dated
26.4.2011, a report in writing was also given by the complainant to said police
station contending that on 23.4.2011, for bringing his grain from his village he
hired the tractor of Bansilal. On the way at Bus stand Kundam, he refused to
bring his grain from village, on which, on account of returning their sum of fare,
some quarrel took place between him and applicant No.1 Bansilal, in which all the
applicants with intention to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste
covered under the Act, abused him with filthy languages and also beaten them.
When Panchamlal and Preeti Chakrawarty came to rescue him then they were also
subjected to abuse and beating by them, on which, the complainant fled away and
came to police station to lodge the report. At the time of lodging the earlier report
due to fear of the applicants, he did not mention the name of applicants No.2 and 3
as culprits of the incident and the same was lodged only against applicant No.1
Bansilal, while he and aforesaid two victims, were abused and beaten by all the
applicants. In the above-mentioned circumstances, on establishing the cognizable
offence, the FIR was registered against the applicants as Crime No.82/11 for the
offence of section 294,323,506/34 of the IPC and of section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
Said Panchamlal and Preeti were also sent to hospital for examination where their
MLC reports were prepared. Caste certificate of the complainant was taken from
the concerning Gram Panchayat. The applicants were arrested and also
3
interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the
investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for the alleged offence.
3. The trial Court on evaluation of the papers of the charge sheet framed the
aforesaid charge against the applicants, on which, they, have come to this court
with this revision.
4. Shri R.K.Nagar, counsel of the applicants, after taking me through the copy
of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed, argued
that at the initial stage the complainant did not stated anything regarding beating
with Preeti Chakrawarty. Even the specific allegation showing the alleged
incident took place with intention to humiliate the complainant on account of his
caste covered under the Act had not been stated and, such allegations were alleged
in the subsequent report in writing submitted by the complainant. In such premises
on proper evaluation of the charge sheet, the alleged charges or, in any case, in the
available factual matrix as appeared from the charge sheet, the charge of section
3(1)(x) of the Act deserves to be set aside. He also said that in the interrogatory
statements of the witnesses just to implicate the applicants with the alleged
offence, exaggerated version has been stated by them. The same being contrary to
initial FIR, could not be considered for framing the charges and prayed for
discharging all the applicants from the alleged charge by admitting and allowing
this revision. He also placed his reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter
of Sushila Devi Sharma Vs. State of MP- 2005(3) MPLJ 152.
5. Keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers of
the charge sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and the
framed charges. It is apparent from the FIR as well as report in writing given by
the complainant that during the course of alleged quarrel, applicant No.1 Bansilal
abused the complainant just to humiliate him on account of his caste and also
4
abused the other victims and, in continuation, they were beaten also by the
applicant Bansilal. In subsequent report in writing, the complainant categorically
stated the act of each of the applicants attributed by them in the alleged incident.
It is apparent from both the reports that the applicants abused the complainant
with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste and in continuation, not
only the complainants but other victims were also beaten by them. In such
background the entire investigation was carried out. As per MLC report all the
three victims sustained the injuries on their person. Even on recording the
interrogatory statements of witnesses, namely, Gend Singh Gond, Panchamlal,
and Preeti Chakrawarty, Shambu Singh, Rajju, Ramu and Sufali, they have
categorically stated the same version as stated by the complainant in the aforesaid
reports. On going through such entire evidence collected by the investigation
agency, I am of the considered view that prima facie circumstances for framing
the impugned charge are available in it. At the stage of framing the charge, no
Court is empowered to ignore any part of the evidence collected by the
investigation agency and discharge the accused from the alleged offence. As per
settled proposition, at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has not to
evaluate the evidence keeping in view whether on holding the trial the accused
like the applicants may be convicted in the matter or not. In the aforesaid
premises, I have not found any error , perversity or irregularity in the order
impugned framing the above mentioned charges against the applicants.
6. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence in the charge sheet
showing that the complainant Gend Singh Gond was humiliated on account of his
caste also, the aforesaid cited case of this court in the matter of Sushila Devi
Sharma (supra) is not helping to the applicants.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any error or perversity
5
in the order impugned requiring interference at this stage to discharge the
applicants under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, this
revision being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion
hearing.
(U.C.Maheshwari)
Judge
MKL
6
7