Allowed

Karam Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2022CRA/892/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction under the Sustainable Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the prosecution failed to establish that the altercation was motivated by caste prejudice. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 set aside; appellant acquitted.

Karam Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 892 of 2003

¶5

Karam Das Manikpuri, S/o Umenddas Manikpuri, aged about 31 years, R/o Kaidymuda, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (CG)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.H Officer, PSH, AJK, Raigarh, Raigarh (CG)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶12

Judgment On Board

¶13

21/07/2022 :

¶14

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raigarh in Special Case No.35/2001 convicting the appellant under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal.

¶15

Prosecution case is that the complainant (PW-1) Shantiyus Beg belong to a ST category and the appellant is not the member of such category. The appellant is the neighbour of the complainant. Earlier on 18.12.2000, the appellant had beaten the complainant and the

¶16

¶17

complainant has also lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh. Due to such prior incident, on 1.1.2001, at about 3 pm the appellant came in front of door of the complainant and started abusing him in the name of his caste and humiliated and also threatened to kill him. The incident was witnessed by the complainant’s brother-in-law (PW-4) Devnees Kerketta and (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant.

¶18

The complainant has lodged the FIR on the date of the incident at 17.05 hours at Azad Police Station, Raigarh vide Ex.-P/1. During investigation, caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt.

¶19

The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the appellant examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated. There was previous enmity on account of quarrel for installation of disc wire. He has also examined one defence witness namely, Kishore Sahu (DW-1), who has stated that on the date of the incident he had gone for picnic to Chandrapur and was not present on the spot.

¶20

After appreciating the evidence, by the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, however, acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 294 and 506-B of the IPC.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence for the reason that the complainant belong to a particular community and the incident was not regarding caste based atrocity, though the trial Court has acquitted the appellant of other charges, but wrongly convicted the appellant in the aforesaid section. So learned counsel prays to allow the Appeal.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment on submission that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and the judgment is well merited and it does not call for any interference.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

(PW-1) Shantiyus Beg has deposed that the residence of the appellant is in front of his house. He further deposed that prior to the incident also, the appellant has raised quarrel with him for which he has also lodged a report, but the Police has not taken any action on such report. Being annoyed with the report, the appellant came in front of his house and started abusing him in the name of his caste and also used filthy languages. At the time of such abusing, he was inside the house. The appellant has stated that though he has made a complaint to the police, but nothing happened, so he again threatened to kill him. When the complainant came out from his house, the appellant pushed him and he fell down. He further deposed that (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant and (PW-4) Devnees Kerketta intervened in the matter. He stated that he belongs to ST community

¶26

¶27

and the police has seized his caste certificate (Ex.-P/4) vide seizure memo (Ex.-P/3) by KL Kashyap (CSP). (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant and (PW-4) Devnees Kerketta have also deposed in similar lines as that of the complainant. (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant also admits that in the earlier complaint made by PW-1 against the appellant, he was also a witness.

¶28

In the entire case, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record as to for what reason the quarrel started between the appellant and the complainant, though from the evidence it is explicit that the quarrel took place because of the previous incident in which the Police has not taken any action. So the dispute did not occur because of caste consideration, but it appears that there was some previous dispute, as the appellant has stated that there was some quarrel about the disc wire, so for such reason, a false complaint has been made. Therefore, inference can be drawn that the incident did not occur because the victim belong to a particular caste, however, by chance the complainant belongs to a particular caste and in such quarrel, if some words are uttered calling the surname of the caste and particularly when the appellant has already been acquitted of the charge under Section 294 of the IPC, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was insult or intimidation to the complainant on account of the complainant belongs to a particular community, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge that the appellant intentionally insulted, with intent to humiliate the complainant because he belongs to a particular

¶29

¶30

community. Therefore, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not proved.

¶31

In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. He shall appear before the higher Court, as and when directed.

¶32

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Barve

Karam Das Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Das Manikpuri 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

Hemant Jatvar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Nayan Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rasheed Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Agrawal Vs Sanjay Kumar Agrrawal

Abdul Kadder Vs State of Chhattisgarh