Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.4.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶22

2

¶23

1989, Bilaspur (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.63/02, whereby the learned Special Court, after holding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them in the following manner:-

¶24

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 294	To pay a fine of
of the IPC	Rs.200/-, in default of
	payment of fine to
	undergo SI for 7 days, each.
Under Section 3(1)	RI for 6 months with fine
(x) of the	of Rs.200/-, in default of
Scheduled Castes	payment of fine to
and Scheduled	further undergo RI for 7
Tribes (Prevention	days, each.
of Atrocities) Act

¶25

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4.7.2002, Complainant Son Bai (PW-5) lodged a report stating therein that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and the appellants belong to the General Category. At the time of the incident, when appellant – Mohan Singh and his wife were returning from the agricultural field along with their buffalo, near a banyan tree in the village, the buffalo rubbed against the complainant’s grandson Anish @ Fukki (PW-8), whereupon he beat the buffalo with a wooden club. Thereafter, appellant Mohan Singh abused him in filthy language by naming his caste. When complainant Son Bai (PW-5) intervened, appellant Mohan Singh and other co-accused persons abused her in filthy language and by naming her caste. The FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged by complainant Son Bai (PW-5), which was

¶26

3

¶27

recorded in Roznamchasana . After enquiry, the FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellants for the offence under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Atrocities Act”).

¶28

3. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 294, 506B, 323 of the IPC & 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act was filed against the appellants before the concerned jurisdictional Court.

¶29

4. Learned Special Court framed the charges under Section 294, 506-B, 323/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act against the appellants, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial.

¶30

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the crime in question. The appellants have examined two witnesses namely Chait Ram (DW1) and Ramayan (DW-2) in their defence.

¶31

6. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Special Court acquitted the appellants for the offence under Sections 506-B and 323/34 of the IPC. However, the concerned Court convicted them for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Against which, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

¶32

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for commission of the

¶33

4

¶34

offence under Section 294 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act in the absence of evidence on record.

¶35

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment.

¶36

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record along with record of the Special Court with utmost circumspection.

¶37

10. Anish @ Fukki (PW-8) is the individual whose action precipitated the instant incident. This witness has stated in his deposition that in the afternoon of the date of the incident, the buffalo being taken by appellants Mohan Singh and Dilharan alias Nanhu rubbed against him. In response, he struck the buffalo once with a wooden stick. Thereafter, appellant – Mohan Singh abused him in filthy language and also insulted him by naming his caste, saying ‘ Chamra Sala ’. He further stated that when his grandmother Son Bai (PW-5) intervened, appellants Mohan Singh, Dilharan @ Nanhu and Udal Singh also abused her, using caste based slurs, by saying Chamrin . He has further stated that he felt distressed upon hearing these obscene words and the above fact was corroborated by his grandmother Son Bai (PW-5). Hemchand (PW-1), Dr. Basant Kumar Norge (PW-4), Sukhdas (PW-6) and Surendra Kumar (PW-7) are the eye-witnesses to the incident. They have also supported the deposition of the complainant and her grandson, stating that the dispute erupted after a buffalo rubbed against Anish @ Fukki (PW-8). Consequently, appellants Mohan Singh and other co-accused abused Son Bai (PW-5) and Anish @ Fukki (PW-8) using filthy language and referencing their caste.

¶38

5

¶39

11. Although Chait Ram (DW-1) and Ramayan (DW-2), residents of the same village and belonging to the SC Category, were present at the place of the incident and corroborated that a dispute erupted between the victim party and the appellants, but they denied that the appellants used filthy language or caste-based slurs against Son Bai (PW-5) and Anish @ Fukki (PW-8). However, the use of such language was corroborated by the eye-witnesses present on the spot namely Hemchand (PW-1), Dr. Basant Kumar Norge (PW-4), Sukhdas (PW-6) and Surendra Kumar (PW-7).

¶40

12. Having considered the depositions of the aforementioned witnesses, it is found that the learned Special Judge rightly held it proved that the appellants abused not only Anish @ Fukki (PW-8) in filthy language but also his grandmother Son Bai (PW-5).

¶41

13. Indisputably, the victims belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category, while the appellants are members of the general category. The appellants abused them by using their caste names; however, both the parties are resident of the same village and the dispute erupted over a trivial issue.

¶42

14. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants abused them in filthy language and by naming their caste with a specific intention to insult or humiliate them. Since intent has not been established, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act cannot be sustained and is accordingly set-aside. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are set-aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. However, their conviction under Section 294 of the IPC is upheld.

¶43

6

¶44

15. So far as the sentence part with regard to Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, the learned Special Judge has imposed a fine of Rs.200/on each of the appellants. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this fine is hereby enhanced to Rs.3000/- to be paid by each of the appellants. However, it is made clear that if the appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Any amount already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted against the enhanced amount.

¶45

16. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed.

¶46

17. Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and doing needful, if any.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶49

Judge

¶50

Shyna

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambharosh Singh @ Thuna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ajooba Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Shree Salasar Balaji Ferro Alloys Private Limited Vs Deepak Daga

Arjun Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh