HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No 522 of 2000
Bhagirathi Sahu
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
! Shri Sudeep Agrawal counsel for the appellant
^ Shri Sameer Behar Panel Lawyer for the State
CORAM: Honble Mr Ranganath Chandrakar J
Dated: 07/08/2009
: Judgement
JUDGMENT
Delivered on this 7th day of August 2009
Criminal appeal uS 374 2 of the Criminal
Procedure Code
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-2-
2000 passed by the learned Special Court, Raigarh, in
Special Case No. 48 of 1998, whereby the accused/appellant
has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
`Act’) & under Section 506 (2) of the IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for six months on each count. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20-2-
1998 when the complainant was teaching the students in
primary school at village Laat, at about 11.45 a.m., the
accused/appellant forcibly entered into the class room and
abused the complainant by caste. On this, the complainant
asked the accused/appellant to go away from the school, but
he did not heed his words and sat there on a chair. The
accused/appellant also threatened the complainant stating
that he would be killed on the way to his house. The
reason behind the incident was stated to be the interchange
of plates (Thali) brought for mid-day meals between the
students due to which the teaching work was affected. The
complainant lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/1) relating
to the incident at Police Station, Chhal, on the basis of
which the FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered, the matter was
investigated and the accused/appellant was arrested on 28-9-
1998.
(3) After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed in the Special Court. The Special Judge framed
charges punishable under Section 294 & 506 (2) of IPC and
under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. The accused abjured the
guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication.
The learned Special Judge after due trial convicted and
sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of
the judgment.
(4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the
evidence in its proper legal perspective. The conviction
recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge
are contrary to the facts available on record. The
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients
of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and 506 (2)
of the IPC. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the
benefit of doubt. There is no material on record to
establish that the appellant did the act with a view to
humiliate the complainant. There is no iota of evidence in
the record. Learned counsel further submits that the
statements of PW/2 Sahebram and PW/3 Ramkumar and PW/4
Tejram Rathia are not reliable and inspire no confidence.
PW/6 Laxminarayan, who is eye-witness to the incident has
not supported the prosecution story and has been declared
hostile which makes the prosecution case suspicious.
Learned counsel further submits that the conclusions
arrived at by the trial Court are based on presumptions
and surmises and on the grounds mentioned above, amongst
others, the impugned conviction and sentence passed against
the appellant is bad in law and the same deserve to be set
aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.
6) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/State argued the case in support of the impugned
order of the lower court.
7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have
perused the records of the special Court and also the
impugned judgment .
8) The prosecution in order to prove the guilt against
the accused/appellant, examined as many as six witnesses.
9) PW/2 Saheblal, the complainant has stated in his
deposition that during mid-day meals there was interchange
of plates between the students by mistake, due to which the
students were quarrelling each other. The matter was
intervened by Saheblal saying that the plates would be
searched after the meal. Thereafter, the son of the
accused/appellant went to his house and after some time he
came along with the daughter-in-law of the accused. She
started murmuring that how the plate of her child was
misplaced. She also threatened the witness to see and took
away three plates saying that she would not return the
plates till the plate of her child was given. He tried to
convince her to settle the matter. He assured her to
search out the plate of her child and simply pushed the
plate kept in the verandah. On this, she became furious
and went away. Thereafter, the witness went to his
class room. When he was teaching the students in Class Vth
, the accused/appellant came there and forcibly entered
into the class room, abused him and said that how did he
dare to abuse his daughter-in-law. On this, he replied
that he had not said anything to his daughter-in-law and
asked the accused/appellant to sit for half an hour and he
would make him understand the whole story. The other
teachers also forbade the accused/appellant to enter into
the school. The accused/appellant did not go away from
the school, despite the request of the teachers and abused
Saheblal by caste saying “Tum mujhe nikalnewale `Chamar’
kahin ke hote kaun ho”. The accused also threatened him
to kill, if he passes in front of the house of the
accused/appellant. The incident also interrupted the
teaching work of the school. The matter was also reported
to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who asked him to lodge
the report in Police Station. Thereafter, he lodged the
written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Chhal on the
basis of which FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. During
investigation, he produced his caste certificate. The
statement of this witness has also been corroborated by
PW/3 Ramkumar, PW/4 Tejram Rathia who are the eye-witness
to the incident.
10) This witness was cross examined at length, but
nothing appeared in his cross examination due to which the
testimony of this witness can be held unreliable. Though
some contradictions and omissions appeared in the statement
of this witness made before the court and before the
Police in view of the written report (Ex.P/1), his
statement remained unrebutted on material points.
11) PW/1 – B.P. Singsaria, Sub Inspector has supported the
testimony of the complainant (PW/2) and admitted that on
the basis of written report (Ex.P/1) of the complainant, he
registered the FIR (Ex.P/2).
12) PW/5 – A. Sai Manohar, the S.D.O.(P) deposed that he
received the case diary of Crime No. 33 of 98 for
investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses
Saheblal (PW/2), PW/3) Ramkumar, PW/4 Tejram and PW/6
Laxmi Narayan and other witnesses, thereafter, arrested the
accused. He admitted his signatures on the statements of
the witnesses and arrest memo (Ex.P/4). He also admitted
that during investigation, caste certificate (Ex.P/6) of
the complainant (PW/2) was obtained. Thereafter, the
charge sheet was filed by him in the competent court. In
cross examination of this witness, nothing appeared to
disbelieve the prosecution story.
13) Although PW/6 – Laxmi Narayan declared hostile and
did not support the prosecution story, he admitted the fact
that on the date of incident some altercation took place
between the daughter-in-law of the accused and the
complainant (PW/2), thereafter, the accused/appellant also
came there. On bare perusal of the testimony of this
witness, it is crystal clear that on the date of
incident the accused came to the school and forcibly
entered into the class room where the complainant was
teaching the students and from this the prosecution story
finds corroborated.
14) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Swarna
Singh and others vs. State through Standing counsel and
another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 has observed as
under”.
24. In our opinion, calling a member
of the Scheduled Caste “chamar” with
intent to insult or humiliate him in a
place within public view is certainly
an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
the Act. Whether there was intent to
insult or humiliate by using the word
“chamar” will of course depend on the
context in which it was used.
30. In this connection it may be
mentioned that in America to use the
word “nigger” today for an African-
American is regarded as highly
offensive and is totally unacceptable,
even if it was acceptable 50 years
ago. In our opinion, even if the word
“chamar” was not regarded offensive at
one time in our country, today it is
certainly a highly offensive word when
used in a derogatory sense to insult
and humiliate a person. Hence, it
should never be used with that intent.
The use of the word “chamar” will
certainly attract Section 3(1)(x) of
the Act, if from the context it
appears that it was used in a
derogatory sense to insult or
humiliate a member of SC/ST”.
15) So far as this case is concerned, there is
consistent evidence on record regarding intentional, insult
or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of
Scheduled caste. Calling a person by the caste-name
“Chamar” (as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment) with
intention of insulting or intimidating or humiliating will
also constitute the offence rendered under the section.
More so, these witnesses have also corroborated the
statement of the complainant (PW/1) and they have been
remained unrebutted on material point. PW/3 Ramkumar and
PW/4 Tejram Rathia, the teachers of the school have clearly
stated that the complainant was abused by caste name
“Chamar” and threatened to kill by the accused/appellant in
the school which is a public place. Thus, after
appreciating the evidence on record, it is clear that the
case is well made out against the accused/appellant. There
is consistent evidence against him about the intentional
insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of
Scheduled caste in a public place.
16) Having considered all the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of principles of
law laid down in Swarna Singh (supra), I am of the
considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant under Section
506(2) and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and no
interference is called for by this court in the impugned
judgment of the Special Court.
17) For the foregoing, the appeal deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE