The High Court acquitted the appellant of using filthy language to humiliate a Scheduled Caste member, finding the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of conviction and ordered bail extension.
Judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside; bail extended for further period of 6 months.
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.
a !' *i, J
NAFR
HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal AppealNo.96of2006 Firanta S/oMaheshRamSahu,aged46years,R/o.VillageManikchouri, Chouki-Pachpedi,P.S.Masturi,DistrictBilaspur,Chhattisgarh.
---- AppeHant
Versus
Bilaspur, State ofChhattisgarhthrough policestationMasturi,District \ ' Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
22/01/201 6
Challengeinthis g judgmentofconvictionandorder (1) of sentence dated 31.01.2006'passed by the Learned Special Judge, ScheduledCastesandScheduledTribes(Prevention ofAtrocities)Act, 1989 (forshort ‘the Act of 1989‘), Bilaspur inSpecialCriminalCaseNo. 43 of 2005,wherebyandwhereundertheSpecialJudge, after holding the Appellant guiltyforintentionallyusingfilthylanguagewithanintention to humiliateamemberofScheduledCaste in a public place,convicted ‘of him under Section 3(1)(x) the Act of 1989 and sentenced him to undergorigorousimprisohmentfor 1 year and to payfineof¥1‘000/— i n default of paymentoffine‘tofurtherundergoRlforthreemonths.
Convictionisimpugnedonthe groundthatwithouttherebeingany (2) iota of evidence,LearnedCourt belowhasconvictedandsentencedthe
Appellant asaforementionedandtherebycommittedillegality.
(3) As per case of the prosecution, on 13.11.2004 at about 3:00 pm, Laxman (PW1) along with others were sitting in a public place. At that time, the Appellant came there and started speaking obscenewords i.e. “Saale, Chamaron KO Maro"and when Laxman (PW1) attempted to stop, the Appellant abused him and thereafter went towards the policeoutpost. The matter was reported in the police station at Masturi (Ex.P/1). The police registe d againstth‘e. pp‘ellantandstartedinvestigation. D9 thepolice collected the c spot map (EXP/2.)
(4) Statements of the k e re recorded under Section 161 of 'the the Code of Criminal :1 973 (for short Code‘). After completion of the lnve heet was filed and the Appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The Special Judge under the Act of 1989, Bilaspur received the case on transfer and conductedtrial.
(5) ln order to prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstancesappearing against him, pleadedinnocenceand false implication in the crjme in question. (6) The Appellant examined one defence witness Aaju Ram (DW1). As per evidence of Aaju Ram, the Complainant abused and assaulted the Appellant. Thereafter, when the Appellant was going to the police ’\>:~~\ r\statiOn to lodge a report against the Complainant in this regard, the
k“
Complainant and other members of theComplainantcommunitysieged the outpost Pachpedi. As perthe defence witness, the dispute was pacified and no abuse or intentional insuit was committed by the Appellant.
(7) After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, Learned Speciai Judge acquitted the Appeilant of thechargeunderSection323of 'L the IPC but: ) (xi) fthe Act of 1989 and im as aforesaid. ‘je i have heard l for the parties,__wperused the judgmentimpugnedan d Court below.
(9) Learned counsei f J lant vehementiy argued that as per the caste certificate ( E m ainant belongs to Satnamicaste and as per statement oft m plalnant (PW-1) in paragraph12ofthe “Chamar”. cross-examination, the Appellant used the word The Complainant admitted that he does not belong to Chamar caste and people used to say Satnami to the members of the community of Satnami. Learned counsel further submits that earlier as the Complainant abused the Appellant and when the Appellant was going towards police station for lodging the report, in their defence the Complainant has falsely implicatedtheAppellant This fact is admitted by Naresh Kumar (PW—2) andBedRamBanjare (PW-3)intheirstatements in paragraphs 8 and 9, respectively. PW-3 admitted in his evidence‘that a member of the community oftheComplainantcaughtholdthecollarof the Appellant. Learned Counselfurthersubmittedthatearlieronaccount ii some dispute in the village, the Complainant had used the word
Chamar and from the statements it is further surfaced that the Appellant was not using the word Chamar for the Complainant. The Appellant may not be convicted for the same. So far as the allegation against the Appellant that he voluntarily assaulted and caused simple injuries to the Complainant is concerned, the same has not been proved and no prosecutionwitnesshassupportedthesame. As such, the Court below " i f armed under Section.323 of C omplainant falsely lodged the re p i nst the Appellant W-3) made a tnami and they dot'not belong to n has failed to prove the essential ingredients and hence,
(10) On the other hand, ea e, .Counsel for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment passed by Court below and submitted that the judgment passed by the Court below is well reasoned. Hence, there is no scope for interference as the prosecution case is duly supported by the evidence of the Complainant and other witnesses.
(11) In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, i have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution._and the defence.
(12) From perusal of the entire evidence, it shows that initiallytthere were allegations in the FIR and as per the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code, the Appellant had a scuffle with the \ 3:; Complainant but all the witnesses have not said anything regarding the
physicalcontactorscufflebetweentheComplainantandtheAppellantor with anybody. It further reveals that the factsnarrated in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesseshavenotbeendulycorroborated in the cross~examination. From a bare perusal of the evidence, it is further surfaced that the Complainant belongs to Satnami caste as percaste certificate Ex.P/3.
n t and other witnesses, it does not refl e t the Appellant ' h a said anything to s ult the Complai n s the word Chamar has no releva' te of the Complainant. There is no evidence to showthat t t has been used intentionally orwith intent to humiliate the C o s he belongs to certain other caste which is an essenti al conviction. and sentence. The witnesses and the Complainan t, fmself have not supported the entire facts as they had alleged in the FIR or in the statements under Section 161 of the Code. lt further reveals that the report is lodged by the Complainant to counter their act. It is further surfaced that on account of some dispute in the village the Complainant party have used the word Chamar. From the statement it is further surfaced that the Appellant was not using the word Chamarfor the Complainant.
(14) From a close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in considered view of this Court, the prosecution has failed to provetheingredientsofSection3(1)(x)oftheActof1989and it would not be safe to hold conviction against the Appellant on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses as there are some
\
ve improments at some point of tim e in their statements and the report was lodged by the Complainant to counter their act.
(15) On due consideration, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond all probable doubts, the judgment of convictnio and sentence reqiresu interference.
“ I fii e‘ by_,_theAppellant is hereby allowed. h e trial Court; if deposited, shall be refunded. He be set a t) . It is stated that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bond s for a further period'of 6 months as per requementir of Secion”43t7—A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. V l Sci/4
(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE
Nimmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 to convict the appellant of using filthy language to humiliate a Scheduled Caste member.
Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the charge and required bail extension.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firanta
State of Chhattisgarh
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
