Partly allowed¶¶28

Sikender Mandal and Other v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2024Cr.A(SJ)/699/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sikender Mandal v. State of Jharkhand | Jharkhand HC, Ranchi | Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 699 of 2012 | decided 07.02.2024 | Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J | SC/ST Act s.3(1)(xi): no intent to outrage modesty where assault arose from chicken dispute, son attacked first | IPC 323/34 conviction upheld, sentence = period already undergone | fine Rs.5000/- (set aside with SC/ST conviction) | Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with modification: conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act set aside; conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC maintained with sentence confined to period already undergone; appellants (on bail) discharged from their bail bond liability. ¶¶28

Sikender Mandal and Other Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the assault on the informant was with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty, so as to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

On the FIR and testimony, the answer to whether the assault was intended to outrage the informant's modesty is in the negative: the genesis was a dispute over her stray chicken, her son was assaulted first, and she and her daughters were injured while going to his rescue; the occurrence was not on account of her caste.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323/34 IPC; the findings of the learned court below are not disturbed on that count.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The object of the SC/ST Act is not to be used as a weapon in all disputes involving a member of SC/ST; protection applies where one suffers atrocity because of caste. Here there was an intention to assault, but not to dishonour or outrage the modesty.ratio¶¶23
The judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2012 and order of sentence dated 11.06.2012 are set aside with respect to the conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 699 of 2012 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 07.02.2024, Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J): Conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC upheld — injuries corroborated the injured witnesses' consistent account and no contradiction was elicited. Conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act set aside: the occurrence of 14.04.2007 arose from a dispute over the informant's stray chicken; her son was assaulted first and the informant and her daughters were injured while going to his rescue; there was an intention to assault but none to dishonour or outrage modesty, and the occurrence was not on account of caste. The Court observed that the object of the SC/ST Act is not to convert every dispute into an atrocity case; protection is for those who suffer atrocity because of caste. Sentence under Section 323 IPC confined to the period already undergone, considering the genesis of the offence and absence of criminal antecedents; appellants discharged from bail bonds. Defence reliance placed on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 (insult/intimidation punishable only if on account of belonging to SC/ST).

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 699 of 2012

¶3

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2012 and order of sentence dated 11.06.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Godda in Special Case No.50 of 2010]

¶4

Sikender Mandal 2. Sunil Mandal 3. Gopi Mandal .... .... …. Appellants --Versus-The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.

¶5

¶6

PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.50/2010 arising out of Godda (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.91/2007 in which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred ‘SC/ST Act’) and R.I. for one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

As per the written report lodged by Basanti Devi on 14.04.2007, both sides are neighbours and the incidence took place as the accused persons asked the informant to keep her Poultry in check as they used to roam about. When the informant said that poultry cannot be kept in leash, Veena Devi started abusing her by calling her caste name and when her son Ram Chandra Ravidas protested, Veena Devi, Sunil Mandal, Gopi Mandal, Sikendra Mandal, Damodar Mandal and Ranju Devi variously armed with Lathi, Danda assaulted her son Ram Chandra Ravidas. When she went to his rescue, she was assaulted and injured by them. In the incidence, her daughter Sita Devi and Fulia Kumari were also injured. It is alleged that on earlier occasion also, she was subjected to harassment by the accused persons by calling her caste name and were trying to oust her from the said place.

¶9

The police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the appellants and they were put on trial under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶10

¶11

The prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses, out of which one of the witnesses P.W.3, the independent witness, turned hostile. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that trifle incidence of altercation between both sides over chicken has been given the texture of atrocities being committed under SC/ST Act, 1989. It is submitted by the learned counsel that unless and until motive of offence is subjugation of member of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, each and every dispute cannot be termed as an offence under SC/ST Act. Reliance is placed on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 wherein it has been held:-

¶12

“13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”

¶13

On facts, it is submitted that out of eight witnesses, not a single direct independent witness has been examined, although incidence took place near the house in the Mohalla of the informant. All the witnesses are family members of the informant, out of which P.W.3-Basudeo Das, who is also resident of same village, has not at all supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W.6 has specifically stated that genesis of offence was the dispute over chicken. P.W. 1-Kaiti Devi, who is mother-in-law of the informant, has not stated in her deposition that the incidence took place due to caste or caste name was used in the offence. P.W. 2-Fulo Devi is the daughter of informant and she has also stated that the incidence took place due to the dispute over chicken and they were neighbors. It is argued that although these witnesses have stated that she was assaulted by Lathi and she sustained only simple injury. P.W.4-husband of the informant gives similar account of the incidence, but has nowhere stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused persons called the informant by her caste name and was also a hearsay witness. P.W. 5 is son of informant and has stated that the genesis of offence was the dispute over chicken.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the appellants conjointly assaulted the informant by calling her caste name and for this act of the appellants, will squarely come within the meaning of Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the testimonies of the injured deserve higher degree of credence, and cannot be brushed aside. P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 were injured in the incidence and have given

¶15

¶16

consistent account that the accused persons assaulted them. Doctor has proved the injury report and has opined that the injuries were simple in nature.

¶17

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, the picture that can be conjured is that the incidence took place on 14.04.2007 in the morning, between the informant and the appellants over her chicken being left stray which was objected to by the appellants/accused persons. The injuries sustained by the injured corroborate their oral account that they were assaulted by the appellants/accused persons. The defence has failed to elicit any contradiction or inconsistency in the account as far as the assault is concerned to falsify the prosecution story.

¶18

Under the circumstance, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conviction under Sections 323/34 of the IPC of the appellants/accused persons, so as to differ with the findings of the learned Court below.

¶19

As far as the offence Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, in order to appreciate the argument raised it will be appropriate to extract the provision which reads as under:-

¶20

“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.”

¶21

The main point for determination in the present case is whether the intention of assault was to outrage the modesty of the informant?

¶22

The answer to the question will be in the negative on the reading of the FIR as well as the testimony of the witnesses. The informant in no uncertain terms states in her deposition that the cause for dispute was chicken, and it was first the son of the informant who was assaulted and when she went to his rescue, she and her daughters were also assaulted by the appellants party. It was a case of fight in which the informant was not assaulted initially, but the son was and in the ensuing fight, she was also allegedly assaulted. How can on these allegations, it can be said that it was for the caste of the informant that the incidence took place and she was assaulted on account of it.

¶23

9. The object of SC/ST Act is not to use it as a weapon of offence in all cases of disputes that takes place between member of SC/ST Act and any other person. The object is to protect when because of one’s caste one has to suffer atrocity. In the present case, assault was not initially directed against the informant lady or her daughters, but against her son and when they tried to rescue him, they were

¶24

¶25

also assaulted. There was an intention to assault, but not to dishonor or outrage the modesty.

¶26

Under the circumstance, the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2012 and order of sentence dated 11.06.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Godda in Special Case No.50 of 2010, is set aside with respect to the conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶27

Considering the genesis of offence and there being no criminal antecedent of the appellants brought on record, the period already undergone shall serve the ends of justice so far the sentence under Section 323 IPC is concerned.

¶28

The appeal is dismissed with modification of conviction and sentence. The appellants are on bail and they shall be discharged from their liability of bail bond.

¶29

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶30

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 7^th February, 2024

¶31

NAFR/Anit

Sikender Mandal and Other v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikender Mandal and Other v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishori Prasad Vs National Highways Authority of

Chandra Mohan Singh Vs Menka Devi And Ors.

Dharampur Sahkari Upbhokta Bha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Charku Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Tiwary Alias Pintu Vs State of Jharkhand

Rathu Singh Alias Ranjit Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand