Allowed

Abdul Kadder v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2022CRA/978/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant who was convicted for abuse and alleged caste-based atrocity relating to a road collision. The Court held the prosecution failed to prove caste-based intent beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to insufficient proof regarding the validity of the caste certificate.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and restored to bail.

Abdul Kadder Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 978 of 2002

¶5

Abdul Kadeer, S/o Hazi Musa, aged about 35 years, Driver, R/o Near bus stand, P.S. Keshkal, District – Bastar, C.G.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station – AJAK, Jagdalpur, C.G.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Smt. Deepti Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Shri Yatharth Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Akshara Amit, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶12

Order on board

¶13

21.07.2022

¶14

This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2002, in ST No.523/2001 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bastar, District – Jagdalpur, (C.G.) whereby the appellant

¶15

has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶16

Sr.	Conviction	Sentence
No.
1.	Section 294 of IPC	R.I. for one month,
2.	Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ST	R.I. for one year with fine
	(Prevention of Atrocities)Act	of Rs.1500/- in default of

¶17

payment of fine, additional RI for three months

¶18

Prosecution case in brief is that on 08.07.2001, at about 10.00 a.m. in the Kehskal Bus stand, the appellant abused the complainant – Pramod Kumar Dhruv (PW-6) who belong to the Scheduled Tribe category in filthy language knowing fully well that the complainant belong to the scheduled tribe category. It is alleged that the complainant while parking his bus, collided with the jeep of the appellant which resulted into scratching over his jeep, thereafter, the appellant being annoyed started abusing the complainant in filthy language and also slapped him. On the basis of aforesaid incident, the offence has been registered vide FIR (Ex-P/6) by the complainant and after filing of the chargesheet, the accused abjured his guilt. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. The appellant has not produced any defence witness and in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the crime. After completion of trial by the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted in the aforementioned offences.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction of appellant is bad in law. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper

¶20

perspective, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and acquit the accused/appellant.

¶21

Per contra learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.

¶22

I have gone through the records of the case. The complainant Pramod Kumar Dhruv (PW-6) has deposed that the appellant was returning in his mini bus at Keshkal bus stand and collided his vehicle due to which some scratches have occurred in the vehicle of the appellant. The appellant became annoyed and started abusing the complainant in filthy language in the name of his caste and said “ftl ij vfHk; q Dr vCnqy dknj us eq>s xksM+ eqfj;k lkys cki tue esa xkM+h pyk;s gks dSls xkM+h pykrs gks vkSj feuh cl esa p<+dj 3&4 >kiM+ esjs duiVh esa ekjk” and also slapped him.

¶23

Mahendra Kumar Setia (PW-5), owner of mini bus, has not deposed that the appellant had abused in any manner in the name of caste of the complainant, though he stated that complainant and appellant’s vehicle were dashed due to which appellant started quarreling with the complainant and he also started abusing filthily. Sagar (PW-4) has stated that on collision of the vehicles the appellant abused the complainant in the name of his caste and also slapped him. Such statement was recorded in his earlier statement vide Ex-D/1.

¶24

From the aforesaid facts it is explicit that the incident took place all of a sudden when the two vehicles were collided with each other. The appellant being infuriated uttered some abusive words, which cannot be considered as obscene words or with an intention to humiliate the complainant and the act of the appellant was not because of the complainant belong to a particular community.

¶25

Smt. Kumari Bai (PW-1) the Village Sarpanch has deposed that she has signed the caste certificate of the complainant vide Ex-P/1 as the complainant belongs to the Gond Community. In her cross-examination she specifically admits that the records has been verified by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat and she only puts her signature in the said certificate and she has not seen any record. In the present case the caste certificate has not been proved, which has been issued by the competent authority.

¶26

In the present case, the incident took place on 08.07.2001 and thereafter the matter was kept pending for inquiry for a long period and after more than two months on 21.09.2001 the FIR vide EX-P/4 has been registered. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it appears that the incident took place all of a sudden. If this kind of quarrel happened between the parties and in enraged state of mind any words are uttered though in the name of caste, it cannot be said that the intention of the appellant was to insult or humiliate the

¶27

complainant on account of victim belonged to a particular community. The prosecution could not prove that the quarrel has stated due to caste of the complainant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶28

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 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.

¶29

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶30

Yasmin

Abdul Kadder v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kadder 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

Karam Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh