Allowed

Totaram and Ors. v. the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2017CRA/2867/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a conviction under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The High Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste and failed to identify which specific accused uttered the alleged caste-based slur.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.

Totaram and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. Now C.G. — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 1999

¶4

Totaram Yadav S/o. Jalandhar Yadav, Aged 26 years,

¶5

Goverdhan Prasad S/o. Kanhai Prasad Soni, Aged 38 years

¶6

Niranjan Tripathi S/o. Pitwas Tripathi, Aged 33 years, All resident of village Diwanpur, Thana Pathalgaon, District Raigarh (M.P.)

¶7

--------- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Madhya Pradesh through the District Magistrate,Raipur (M.P.) now Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--------- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Penal Lawyer

¶11

S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Judgement on board

¶12

02. 11. 2017

¶13

1. Challenge in this appeal is judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Special Judge, Schedued Caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocites Act) 1989, Raigarh District Raigarh (MP) (now C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 33 of 96, wherein the trial Court convicted all the accused/appellants under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedueld Tribe (Prevention of Atrocites Act) 1989 and sentenching them to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with deafult stipulations.

¶14

1. As per prosecution case, Bundeli Bai (PW-1) is the complainant and is resident of Village Diwanpur and was Sarpanch of the same village. The Sarpanch was authorized to dig bore in the differnt place of village for providing water to the people at large and the

¶15

¶16

boar was dugged in the locality of Sarpanch Bundeli Bai (PW-1) that is why the people of the other locality of village Diwanpur objected the same. The accused/appellant used certain words on the basis of caste and the matter was reported to Police Station Pathalgaon. As per Ex.P-2, the matter was investigated and the charge sheet was filed bfore the Court of Special Judge, Raigarh wherein the Special Judge framed charges as mentioned above to which the appellants did not plead guilty. The Special Judge conducted the trial and after completion of evidence of the prosecution side, statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., were recorded and after completion of trial, the Special Judge considering the material available on record by the impugned judgement convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above.

¶17

1. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants submit as under:

¶18

That it is not proved by any certificate or oral evidence that the complainant Bundelibai(PW-1) is a member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, offence under the said section is not made out.

¶19

That the incident took place during the meeting which was called on the complaint of people of village for bore was digged inthe locality of sarpanch and people of other locality have been deprived to facility of water,therefore, some altercation took place and the same is not on the basis of caste.

¶20

That it is not clear as to which of the appellant has uttered any word against the Bundelibai(PW-1) and on the basis of general statement no finding can be arrived against the appellants.

¶21

¶22

1. Per contra , learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgement has submitted that the judgement of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with the law and well founded and there is no illegality or infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction of appeal.

¶23

1. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶24

To substantiate the charge prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses to establish that Bundelibai(PW-1) belongs to caste which is inclulded under Scheduled Caste. To attract the provision, it is condition precedent that the victim should be of such class means either of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When his caste is not established it cannot be said that by using any word which is stated it was intended to humiliate Bundelibai(PW-1) on the basis of caste. From the statement of Bundelibai (PW-1), Umashankar (PW-2), Sukhmetbai (BW-3), Bhonduram(PW-4), Gelebai (PW-5), Daduram(PW-7), Hunarsai(PW-8) and Durga Kujur (PW-9). It is established that one general meeting was called by the people of village Diwanpur and the allegation was made against Sarpanch Bundelibai (PW-1) who is the complainant of the case that being Sarpanch of the viillage she executed bore in her locality and that it was not done in other locality and charge of partiality was made against her. It is said that the accused/appellant used word ”Chamarin” but from the evidence of the witness, it is not clear, that as to who used the acutal word, when number of persosns have been prosecuted, prosecution witnesses have to establish objectively as to who is real person uttered the same word in presence of the people but the same has not been established and

¶25

¶26

the general statement of the witness regarding all the accused/appellants is not aceeptable because offence should be proved by the cogent evidence indicating actual act done by any of the accused/appellants, as the meeting organised only regarding place of establishing boring and the same was not organised on the basis of caste, therefore, it cannot be held that any of the accused/appellants have done any act on the basis of caste, offnece under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is not established against all the appellants.

¶27

For the foregoing, court is of the considered opinion that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶28

1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶29

Sd/( Ram Prasanna Sharma ) JUDGE

¶30

Santosh

Totaram and Ors. v. the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Totaram and Ors. v. the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babulal @ Babuji Vs State

Ram Lal @ Rama Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Devi Prasad Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Akbar Ali Vs Smt. Sana Parveen

Umashankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.