Allowed

Chhabil Yadav v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2018CRA/490/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court held that the words used were not obscene and did not exhibit criminal intent under Section 294 IPC. Regarding Section 506 IPC, it found the appellant lacked the capacity to execute the threat.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds deemed operative till six months from the date of judgment.

Chhabil Yadav Vs State of C.G. — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2001

¶4

Chhabil Yadav (Raut), aged about 28 years, S/o. Shri Laxman Yadav, Labour, R/o. Village Masul, PS Gendatola, Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Chhattisgarh,

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For the appellant : Shri PKC Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For the respondent/State : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Judgment On Board

¶11

20.4.2018.

¶12

1 . This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.5.2001 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.09/2001, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and RI for six months respectively for using obscene words in public place on 11.10.2000 at about 8 am at village Masool and for intimidating Korbaharin Bai to kill her.

¶13

2 . To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Tilakdas (PW-2), Tijuram (PW-3), Kansram (PW-7), Ramgopal (PW-8) have not supported the version of the prosecution.

¶14

¶15

3 . As per the version of Thakurdas (PW-1), Dukhan (PW-4), Khorbaharin Bai (PW-5), Anandram (PW-6), the appellant used words eknj pksn egkjhu. As per the version of these witnesses, the appellant also uttered the words that he will bury the body of Khorbaharin Bai.

¶16

4 . Now the point for consideration is whether the words uttered by the appellant falls within the mischief under Section 294 IPC. It is settled law that words which are common in nature and words of common colloquial are not obscene words. Only words related to sex or moral are obscene words. In the present case, the words used by the appellant cannot be termed as obscene words because the same is used frequently and unintentionally.

¶17

5 . For commission of offence mens rea is essential part and if any word is uttered unintentionally it cannot be said that there is intention to commit any criminal act. Looking to the words as stated by the witnesses it cannot be held guilty for commission of offence under Section 294 IPC.

¶18

6 . So far as offence under Section 506 Part-II is concerned, mere uttering of the words is not sufficient to constitute the offence but it has to be established that the appellant was in a position to execute the threat on the spot. The words were uttered in fury which has only sound and the same is without substance. When the appellant was not having any arms at the time of commission of offence or soon shown determination as to how he will be able to kill the complainant, the words are not

¶19

¶20

sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 506 Part II of the IPC. The trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and recorded the finding against the settled principles of law which is not sustainable.

¶21

7 . Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the CrPC.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Bini

Chhabil Yadav v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhabil Yadav v. State of 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

Bharat Satnami and Ors. Vs the State of C.G.

Abubakar Vs Naseema Khatri and Anr.

State and Another Vs Santosh and Anothers.

Krishan Chand Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allinz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Dileep Kumar And Ors.

Dilip Kumar And Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar Sahu And Ors.