Allowed

Pawan Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2018CRR/427/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh acquitted the applicant convicted under Section 294 of the IPC. The court held that essential ingredients of the offence were not made out as the incident occurred within a private house and the complainant did not allege annoyance specifically due to alleged obscene language.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed and the applicant was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Pawan Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No.427 of 2013

¶4

Pawan Kumar Pandey, S/o Burjnandan Pandey, about 35 years, occupation Advocate, Current R/o Nagar Agrasen Ward, Behind Mayur Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Revenue and Civil District Surguja, Crime No.12/2007

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. A.J.K., Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent : Shri R.K. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

7.12.2018

¶13

1. The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.4.2013 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja at Ambikapur in Special S.T. No.86 of 2008, whereby the Special Judge convicted the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced with the period of 4 days already undergone by the Applicant.

¶14

2. In this case, Shanti Helna Tigga (PW2) was posted as SubInspector at P.S. Kotwali, Ambikapur. On 19.8.2007, she along with staff of Kotwali, Ambikapur went with the S.H.O. Shankargarh and his staff for the service of search warrant. Allegedly, they reached the place of occurrence, i.e., the house of one person namely Kanchan. Search warrant was issued for the search of one Letha @ Seema daughter of Terra. Allegedly, Letha @ Seema was present at the house of Kanchan. They got the door opened of that

¶15

¶16

house. Letha and her daughter were found there. During search when they were inquired, Letha told that she and her daughter have been kept there by the Applicant for working there. Allegedly the Applicant reached there at that time. Allegedly the Applicant started abusing Complainant Shanti Helna Tigga in the name of her caste and he also addressed her saali. The matter was reported by Complainant Shanti Helna Tigga. Offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 294 of the IPC was registered. Charge-sheet has been filed. The Special Judge framed charges under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Total 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Applicant denied the guilt. After trial the Special Judge acquitted the Applicant of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act but convicted under Section 294 IPC and sentenced as mentioned in first paragraph. Thus, this revision.

¶17

3. Shri Saurabh Dangi, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Special Judge is contrary to facts, law and circumstances of the case. The Court below committed an error of law in the order in which it was held that the Applicant is guilty of using filthy language at public place. Apart from the statement of Complainant Shanti Helna Tigga (PW2) none of the prosecution witnesses has stated that the Applicant had used any filthy language. Complainant Shanti Helna Tigga (PW2) has only stated that the Applicant had addressed her saali. The word “saali” cannot be considered as a filthy word. For the sakeof argument even if it is considered that the word saali was used,

¶18

¶19

from the statement of Shanti Helna Tigga (PW2) it is clear that the alleged incident took place inside the house of Kanchan. The incident did not take place in a public place. Therefore, the offence under Section 294 IPC does not establish. He further submits that the Complainant has not stated anything that from hearing the word saali she got annoyed. Therefore also, the offence under Section 294 IPC is not established.

¶20

4. State Counsel supported the impugned judgment.

¶21

5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

6. Section 294 IPC reads as under:

¶23

“ 294 . Obscene acts and songs.- Whoever, to the annoyance of others-

¶24

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

¶25

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,

¶26

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.”

¶27

7. There are 2 ingredients of Section 294 IPC for establishing the offence thereunder: (i) the obscene word should be used in or near a public place, (ii) someone should be annoyed by the obscene word.

¶28

8. In this case, from the record it is clear that Nirmala Kashyap (PW1), H.K. Kushwaha (PW3), who were present along with the Complainant at the spot have not stated anything in their Court statement regarding any such type of obscene word of saali used

¶29

¶30

by the Applicant against the Complainant. Complainant Shanti (PW2) has only stated that when they reached to the house of Kanchan and got the door of the house of Kanchan opened and Letha @ Seema opened the door at that time when the police party was making inquiry at that time Letha came out of the house. Then the Applicant reached there at the same time. Then the incident took place. From the above itself it appears that at the time of alleged incident Complainant, accused, police party were present inside the house of Kanchan. There is no statement given by Complainant (PW2) that the house of Kanchan was situated at or near the public place. As per the statement of Shanti (PW2) at the time of incident the Applicant had used the words “ daroga ban gayi hai, saali uraon daroga ban gayi hai tumhe dekh lunga, High Court me khada kar dunga” bola. Aaspaas ke log ghatana ko dekhe avam sune, is ghatana se mujhe bahut bura laga. ” From the above, it is also clear that as stated by Complainant Shanti (PW2) that she annoyed by the whole incident. She has not categorically stated that she annoyed due to using of the word “saali”. Therefore, in my considered view, both the ingredients of Section 294 IPC are not established in this case. Therefore, no offence under Section 294 IPC is proved against the Applicant and thus he is entitled to get acquittal.

¶31

9. Resultantly, the revision is allowed. The Applicant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶32

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) Judge

Pawan Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Hulas Sanhara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shakuntala Yadaw Vs Asha Yadaw

Vipin Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Sahu Vs Girdharilal

Mohd. Sahjad Khan Vs Rehana Parween

Sarfuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh