Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009

0
29
Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here