Allowed

Datta Rama Kadam and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC28 Sept 2021APEAL/409/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not prima facie made out due to the absence of specific allegations that the assault was solely because of the victim's caste, relying on the Hitesh Verma precedent.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 each with one or two sureties, on conditions of attendance and non-tampering.

Datta Rama Kadam and Others Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2021

¶5

Datta S/o Rama Kadam Age : 28 Years, Occ. Agriculture

¶6

Krishna @ Laxman S/o Rama Kadam Age : 24 Years, Occ. Agriculture

¶7

Daynoba S/o Rama Kadam, Age : 22 Years, Occ. Agriculture

¶8

Sadashiv S/o Pandurang Kadam, Age : 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture All Resident of Naralad Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. ..Appellants V E R S U S

¶9

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Ofcer, Police Station Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani

¶10

Balaji S/o Digambar Mortate, Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Kapasi Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents ….

¶11

Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. S. K. Chavan A.P.P for Respondent State : Mr. R. B. Bagul Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. S. B. Chavan

¶12

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 28.09.2021

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

The appellants/ original accused have fled this appeal

¶15

¶16

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶17

under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Atrocities Act) to challenge the order dated 13.08.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, District Parbhani in Criminal M.A. (Bail) No. 163 of 2021. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 305/2021 registered with Gangakhed Police Station for the offences punshable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.P.P for Respondent-State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶19

It is contended that Balaji Digambar Mortate lodged FIR on 2.08.2021, wherein he alleged that on 02.08.2021, he along with his brothers Kishan, Narayan and nephew Sakharam were working in their feld. On that day at about 1.30 p.m, Police Patil, Sarpanch and Panch Committee members of the village came to his feld to resolve the dispute in between them and the appellants. The appellant No.1 was also called in the feld of the informant. He was insisting to install boundary stone near the Bandh. The said act was objected by the informant.

¶20

3 942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶21

Therefore, appellant No.1 rushed towards respondent No.2. The appellant No.1 quarreled with the informant and thereafter assaulted him by stick on his head and left hand. It is alleged that the brothers of the informant tried to intervene the scufe, but the appellants abused the informant and assaulted him and his brothers. It is also alleged that the appellants threatened that they would not allow the informant and his brothers to cultivate the land and if they enter into the land, they would be killed. On the basis of said allegations the crime was registered against the appellants.

¶22

On the basis of above allegations learned counsel for the appellants submits that, there are no allegations of hurling of abuses on the caste of the informant against the appellants. He submits that, the appellants and the informant were having boundary dispute since long. The alleged incident had occurred in presence of the Sarpanch, the Police Patil and the Panch Committee of the village. Though there are allegations of assault, but the FIR does not establish the offences under the Atrocities Act. He also submits that, the trial Court has not considered the FIR in proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion.

¶23

¶24

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶25

On the other hand, learned A.P.P submits that, the appellants assaulted the informant and his brothers due to land dispute. Similarly, they tried to dispossess the informant. Therefore, offences under section 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act is prima facie made out. He also submits that, the investigating ofcer has recorded the statements of brothers of the informant namely Sakharam Moretate, Narayan Motate. Both of them have stated in their statements that the appellants abused them over their caste and humiliated them. But the FIR is silent on the point of hurling of abuses by the appellants over the caste of the informant.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants and respondents were having land dispute. Therefore, there should have been specifc allegations against the appellants that they abused the informant and witnesses over their caste but in absence of such averments, in the FIR, no offence is prima facie made out against the appellants. To substantiate his point, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand And

¶27

Another in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020, wherein the Apex Court has held that :

¶28

‘’There is dispute about the possession of the land which

¶29

¶30

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶31

is subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute appellants and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of the property pending before the civil Court any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.’’

¶32

In the present case, the informant has specifcally alleged that during the survey of the land in presence of police patil, Sarpanch and panch committee, appellant No.1 tried to install boundary marks, hence the quarrel ensued. There are no allegations in the FIR that appellants assaulted respondent No.2 only because he belongs to scheduled caste. No such allegations are in the FIR. No doubt the statements of brothers of the informant show that appellants had hurled abuses over their caste. On this point, the investigating ofcer ought to have recorded the statements of Sarpanch, Police Patil and panch committee members to establish the theory put up by brothers of the informant regarding alleged hurling abuses over the caste. But on perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that, till today statements of Sarpanch, Police Pail and panch committee members are not recorded by the investigating

¶33

¶34

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶35

ofcer. The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 02.08.2021, but no steps are taken by the investigating ofcer to record the statements of above persons to establish the true version of the incident.

¶36

On perusal of the FIR, it is not established that the informant and his brothers were assaulted only because they belong to scheduled caste. In view of ratio laid down in the case of Hitesh Verma (cited supra) no offences under the Atrocities Act is prima facie made out against the appellants. Therefore, appellants are entitled for bail, with this I pass the following order

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(I) The appeal is allowed.

¶39

(ii) The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed District Parbhani in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No. 163 of 2021 is hereby set-aside.

¶40

(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with Crime No. 305 / 2021 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, under Sections 324, 323, 504 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act they shall be released on bail on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/(Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with one or two sureties in

¶41

¶42

942- Cri. Appeal No. 409-2021.odt

¶43

the like amount.

¶44

(iv) The appellants shall attend the Gangakhed Police Station between 10.30 a.m to 12.30 p.m. every day from 30^th September 2021 to 16^th October, 2021 and co-operate in investigation.

¶45

(v) They are directed not to tamper the evidence of prosecution in any manner whatsoever.

¶46

It is made clear that observations made here in above shall be construed as an expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail and the same shall not in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.

¶47

( SURENDRA P. TAVADE ) JUDGE

¶48

ysk

Datta Rama Kadam and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Rama Kadam and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarachand S/O. Dharmu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyandev Annasaheb Muley and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Asif S/O. Jakir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sangita Nitin Dhakne Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nagorao Hari Karle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikrushna Sonaji Pimpale Vs the State of Maharashtra