In a criminal appeal regarding a charge-sheet under the SC/ST Act, the Single Judge dismissed the appeal, holding that prima facie evidence established the appellant's involvement in caste-based offenses within a public office setting.
The charge-sheet and cognizance order were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Reserved on 08.11.2021 Delivered on 06.12.2021.
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3344 of 2021 Appellant :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Amrish Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akal Raj Singh,Mohd. Monis
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This is the first appeal filed on behalf of Sanjay Yadav under section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned charge-sheet no. A70A/2020 dated 17.12.2020 under sections 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act police station Bairiya District Ballia as well as cognizance order dated 25.6.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in the aforesaid case in S.T.No. 22 of 2021.
As per the facts of the case, the opp. party no. 2 Radhey Shyam son of late Sarju Ram, posted as Revenue Inspector in Tehsil Sikandarpur, District Ballia, lodged a first information report on 19.2.2020 at 17:38 hours against Hajari Singh (son of M.L.A. Sri Surendranath Singh), Nikhil Upadhyay and Mani Bhushan and one unknown person under section 147, 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act at police station Bairiya, District Ballia with the narration that on 19.2.2020 at 2.00 p.m. he was in his office and was doing some election related work. Hajari Singh (son of M.L.A. Bariya constituency), Sanjay Yadav, the husband of Sangita Yadav (B.L.O.) came and inquired about the transfer of Sangita Yadav. He informed them that there was ban on transfers and postings
2
imposed by the Election Commission till 14.2.2020. Now the transfer would be done this week itself after discussion with the S.D.M. concerned. At this Hajari Singh and his companions Nikhil Upadhyay, Mani Bhushan and 7-8 other persons started abusing and beating him badly with kicks and fists until he fell down on the ground. These persons were hurling caste based abuses knowing him of being a Scheduled Caste candidate.
After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet no. A70A/ 20 dated 17.12.2020 under Sections 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act against Sanjay Ydava. A separate chargesheet no. A170 of 2020 was filed earlier on 17.5.2020 against Mani Bhushan Singh and Pankaj Updhyay @ Nikhil Upadhyay under section 147, 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act 1989. Hajari Singh @ Vidya Bhushan Singh was exonerated of charges levelled against him.
On the basis of this charge-sheet against Sanjay Yadav, the Special Judge SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia took cognizance against the accused Sanjay Yadav under sections 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(dha) SC/ST Act, vide order dated 25.6.2021 summoning the present accused to face trial.
Here the accused Sanjay Yadav only, preferred this appeal against the charge-sheet dated 17.12.2020 and the cognizance order dated 25.6.2021, on the premise that he was neither named in the first information report nor was there any allegation against him in the first information report. Hajari Singh was named in the first information report and the allegations were levelled against him but the Investigating Officer expunged his name and implicated the present accused falsely and submitted charge-sheet against him.
Offence under section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, 1989 can run
3
only if the offence is committed in the public premise and by causing the word the victim was humiliated. A bare perusal of the first information report as well as the statements of the witnesses does not fulfill these two conditions. The caste based words uttered by the appellant have not been mentioned in the first information report. The appellant is a poor person who by way of his agriculture hardly survives with his family. Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia could not apply his judicial mind and in a mechanical manner took cognizance and issued summons against the appellant. There is no cogent evidence against him to show his involvement in the present case and no offence under sections 323, 504, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, 1989 is made out against him.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 however did not appear at the time of hearing.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was neither named in the first information report nor any role has been assigned to him therein. The filthy or caste based words used by the accused appellant have not been mentioned in the first information report. In the statement of the complainant only the fact relating to hurling caste based abuses has come. While witnesses Ravi Shankar Pandey, Ganesh Prasad and Ashok Chaudhary- the Sub Divisional Magistrate have deposed the heresay evidence of hurling abuses by the accused persons. For the offence under SC/ST Act, 1989 humiliation is must and that too in any place within public view. An office can not be said to be a public place. It has come in the evidence that the complainant was sitting lonely in his office, so no such offence can be constituted against him. There is no antecedent of
4
criminal history to the credit of the appellant. Hence, prayer to allow the appeal and quashing for the entire proceedings of the present case including the charge-sheet and cognizance order is made.
Learned A.G.A. argued that the original statement of the complainant has not been placed on record by the appellant. In the statement of complainant caste based words and abuses have been mentioned. On the basis of statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted charge-sheet and the lower court has rightly taken cognizance by applying its judicial mind on the basis of charge-sheet, hence the appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment dated 5.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma VS. State of Uttrakhand and another in Appeal No. 707 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3585 of 2020 , wherein it has been held that the offence under section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the SC/ST Act is made out only when a member of a vulnerable section of society is subjected to indignities, humiliation, harassment, thus the insult and the intimidation in the public place within the public view. It has also been opined that offence under this Act is not established merely on the fact that informant is a member of Scheduled Caste, unless there is intention to humiliate the member of Scheduled Castes for the reason that the victim belong to such caste.
On the basis of above judgment it is further submitted that as per the facts of the present case, the offence is said to have been committed within the four walls of the office and the office cannot be said to be a public place and the incident committed therein cannot be said to be within the public view moreover there was no intention of the accused to humiliate the opp. party no. 2 i.e. the member of scheduled caste. So the charge-sheet and cognizance against him is
5
bad.
If we go through the first information report, as per the version of the first information report, the victim / complainant was working in his office, Hajari Singh along with Sanjay Yadav appellant came and inquired about the transfer of B.L.O. Sangita Yadav, the wife of Sanjay Yadav and when the complainant replied that after consulting with the S.D.M. concerned the transfer would be made in the same week itself at this, Hajari Singh, Nikhil Upadhyay, Manibhushan and some other persons who came with Hajari Singh started thrashing him with kicks and fists until he fell down on the ground. It is clearly mentioned therein that they were hurling filthy, wild and caste based abuses due to being the complainant a scheduled caste Candidate.
The perusal of the statements recorded in Case Diary makes it clear that the complainant Radhey Shyam has reiterated therein the allegations levelled in the first information report and in his very first statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. he has clearly disclosed the fact that the present accused Sanjay Yadav also abused and thrashed him. Previously also Sanjay Yadav had inquired him about the transfer of his wife Sangita Yadava (B.L.O.). It has been again stated in his statement that caste based abuses were hurled to him.
In the statement of Ravi Shankar Pandey, it has come that when he reached in the office of Radhey Shyam, he found injuries on his nose with oozing blood. He was all alone there and on being asked he revealed that Sanjay Yadav, Hajari Singh, Nikhil Upadhyay, Mani Bhushan along with 7-8 other persons came inquiring about the transfer of Sangita Yadav (BLO) and when they were told that the transfer would be done within a week after a discussion with S.D.M. concerned. All these persons started beating and abusing him.
In the statement of Ganesh Prasad recorded under section 161
6
Cr.P.C. he has reiterated the statement of Ravi Shankar Pandey and has specifically stated that the appellant Sanjay Yadav was present on the spot during the incident.
The statement of Ashok Chaudhary, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was also recorded by the Investigating Officer who deposed that on 19.2.2020 at 2.00 p.m. while sitting in his office, he heard some noise from the first floor. The employee of his office went there and came back with the injured Radhey Shyam. On being asked about the injury on his nose, he disclosed that Sanjay Yadav, Hajari Singh, Nikhil Upadhyay and Manibhushan Singh along with 7-8 other persons had come there and inquired about the transfer of B.L.O. Sangita Yadav. They were apprised of the ban / restriction on transfer till 14.2.2020 and they were informed that transfer would take place after having a talk with S.D.M. concerned and that too in the same week itself. Hearing this, all the accused persons started thrashing and abusing him.
The investigation of the Investigating Officer, culminated in the charge-sheet dated 17.12.2020 against the present accused and consequently, the learned lower court took cognizance against the present accused under above mentioned sections. Though separate charge sheet was filed against other accused too but here the subject matter of dispute is the chargesheet and summoning order against Sanjay yadav only.
In the first information report it is clearly mentioned that Hajari Singh, the son of a local M.L.A. came along with Sanjay Yadav who happens to be the husband of Sangita Yadav (B.L.O.) in the office of the complainant and inquired about the transfer of B.L.O. Sangita Yadav and when the complainant apprised that the transfer will be made after having a talk with S.D.M. concerned this week itself,
7
Hajari Singh, Nikhil Upadhyay, Manibhushan and 7-8 other persons started beating and hurling wild and caste based abuses to him. Among all the accused persons only the wife of present accused Sanjay Yadav was the affected person by the alleged transfer list. There was no reason that the accused Sanjay Yadav who was present in the office inquiring about the transfer would not come forward and agitate and the other accused persons who were no way affected by the trasfer would agitate. If the name of present accused Sanjay Yadav specifically is not mentioned among the persons committing offnece, it does not make much difference because the first information report is not an encyclopedia. In the first information report, the conversation of the present accused with the complainant is specifically mentioned and in the statement of complainant along with statements of the witnesses Ravi Shankar Pandey, Ganesh Prasad and S.D.M. Ashok Chaudhary, the name of the present accused with the role of assault and hurling caste based and wild abuses has been mentioned.
So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the particular caste based abuses have not been mentioned in the first information report and what is the particular caste of complainant has also not come therein is concerned the complainant in the F.I.R. has mentioned himself to be a member of scheduled caste and that the accused person hurled caste based abuses to him in nutshell is also mentioned therein. The particular caste and the particular abuse can be explained in the evidence of the prosecution later on.
The Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Varma (Supra) placed by the appellant held that the caste of the appellant accused is a matter of investigation as to whether the accused person belongs to scheduled caste or not. Therefore, not mentioning of the specific caste in the first information report will not adversely affect the complainant. The
8
mentioning of the fact in the F.I.R. that complainant belongs to the scheduled caste and the absence of the denial that complainant belongs to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe is sufficient to make a prima facie case. The fact of the particular caste of the parties and the abuses specifically hurled to the complainant are subject matter of investigation / evidence.
For the offence under section 3(1)(dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act ‘intention to humiliate’ is not needed only abuse to any member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste name in any place within public view is must. The argument of appellant’s counsel that by the act of accused the person of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes must be humiliated is bogus.
The office of the Revenue Inspector cannot be said to be a private place. The absence of public there cannot be presumed on the basis of arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that Radhey Shyam was sitting alone in his office. The fact is still to be proved by the evidence of the parties. The Apex Court in paragraph no. 52 of its judgment in the case of Union of India VS. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761 held that a member of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes due to backwardness hardly must have courage to lodge even any first information report much less of false one.
Thus, on the basis of above discussion, it is clear that though the name of the present accused is not specifically mentioned in the first information report as a person committing offence but his presence in the office at that time is very well mentioned therein and the cause of action arises to this accused only. Others are said to be his companions only. The complainant in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly mentioned the name of Sanjay Yadav among the persons committing the offence. Other witnesses in their
9
statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. have also reiterated this fact. On the basis of these statements, the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. So far as the specific mentioning of the caste of the complainant and specific caste based abuses and so far as the office can be said to be a public place or incident occurred in office can be said to be in public view or not are the questions which are the subject matter of the evidence. Till the stage in my opinion, there is sufficient prima facie evidence to file charge-sheet and take cognizance upon it. Hence, the charge-sheet filed is upon the evidence produced before the Investigating Officer during the investigation and cognizance order passed by the learned lower court is also based on that evidence. Hence, in my opinion, the order is well founded and well reasoned. There is no ground to interfere with the same.
The appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Dated :-6.12.2021
Gss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act is maintainable against a charge-sheet and cognizance order.
Whether the omission of specific caste-based words in the First Information Report vitiates the charge against the appellant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hitesh Verma VS. State of Uttarakhand and anotherReferred¶21
Hitesh Verma VS. State of Uttrakhand and another in Appeal No. 707 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3585 of 2020
Union of India VS. State of Maharashtra and othersExplained¶41
Union of India VS. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC 761 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Yadav
State of U.P.
Sudha Rani (Thakur)
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
