Conviction under Sections 3(1)(v) and (x) of the SC/ST Act arising out of a land dispute was challenged. The High Court found the abuse allegation uncorroborated and the dispute civil in nature, applied Supreme Court precedents on misuse of the Act in land litigation, extended benefit of doubt, set aside conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:JHHC:17255
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 178 of 2008
[Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in Special Case No. 40 of 2005.
Bhola Yadav, Son of Balram Yadav, resident of VillageGhormarapul Talbanna, P.S. –Sahibganj(M), District- Sahibganj
... … Appellant
Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
--------- P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 11.04.2025 Pronounced on 01.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in Special Case No. 40 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 3(1)(V) and (X) of the S.C./S.T. Act ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to undergo RI for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
1
2025:JHHC:17255
3. The present case came into an existence on the filing of a complaint case by one Chandradeo Baitha son of late Sukhan Baitha who stated therein, that he is a retired person and belongs to Scheduled caste. It is further stated by the complainant that one proposal for purchase of 125 bighas of land in Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara area was advanced by Balram Yadav ( father of the present appellant) and he had also given assurance to the complainant that he would look after the said land.
One agreement to this effect was executed between the seller and the complainant and rate of land was agreed at Rs. 1200/- per bigha and out of which Rs. 800/- per bighas for 125 bighas had already been paid by the complainant with a condition that at the time of registration of said land, remaining amount of Rs. 400 per bigha would be paid to the seller. Description of land and name of seller has also been mentioned in the complaint.
It is further alleged by the complainant that the above said land had been taken care of by Balram Yadav but he usurped the produce of land and he did not give any account of produce of the land and on complainant’s query, he used to tell that produce had been looted/taken away by the miscreants. On account of above said conduct of Balram Yadav and appellant, complainant took land under his control and had given contract/lease of land to Jiaul Haque and ten other villagers on 01.09.2003 for a period of one year and they sowed Kelai crop on the land. Thereafter, it
2
2025:JHHC:17255
is alleged that the person who took land on lease asked complainant that they would sow parwal, then complainant along with one Shiv Prasad Thakur (C.W.-2) and Mahendra Yadav visited on the land for the purpose of measurement on 05.11.2003 at 11:00 A.M. When the land was being measured and complainant was having interaction with lease holders, then appellant along with two others came to the land with lathi and pistol and called complainant “Harijan Dhobi” and also abused him and asked the complainant to flee away from the land. It is further alleged that when complainant forbade them from doing so, then they extended threat that his throat would be slit and thrown away, then after intervention of other person’s, complainant was taken away from there. It is also alleged that accused persons cut Kelia sowed on the said land, then complainant made an effort, to meet Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) but Balram Yadav evaded meeting him. Complainant received information regarding loot of Kelai crop on 25.11.2003 and he apprised the incident to higher officials but nothing was done.
4. It is further alleged that on 01.12.2003, he was at his residence at Jirwabari, (Sahibganj), then at 6:30 appellant and his father along with two others abused complainant by saying “Harijan” and asked to handover the aforesaid lands to them,
3
2025:JHHC:17255
otherwise he would lose his life, as such, complainant got scared and on commotion accused persons fled away.
5. The above said complaint was numbered as P.C.R. case no. 234 of 2003 and present appellant and his father Balram Yadav summoned by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after recording of pre summoning evidence. Thereafter, on appearance of both the accused persons, charge under Sections 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Act were framed and explained to both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Complainant has examined as many as three witnesses in the present case including himself and has also brought on record the two original agreement to sale dated 04.09.1998 and 01.04.1998 and registered sale deeds dated 02.06.1999, 20.05.1999 and 04.06.1999.
7. There is no evidence led on behalf of defense.
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, learned trial court convicted appellant under Sections 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but acquitted Balram Yadav (father of the appellant). Hence, appellant preferred the present appeal.
4
2025:JHHC:17255
9. It is urged on behalf of appellant, that, admittedly there is land dispute between the informant and the accused side and taking advantage of that dispute, the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant in the present case by invoking provision of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and civil dispute pertaining to land has been given colour of a criminal case. He further pointed out that, it is admitted position that there is a land of Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) towards eastern side of the purchased land of complainant and complainant had only got sale deed registered for 54 bighas of land but he has claimed to be in possession of the entire land i.e. 125 bigha of land. Complainant wanted support of appellant and his father in grabbing the remaining land for which entire consideration amount has not been paid by him but, as the accused persons did not support the complainant, therefore the present case has been lodged against them. He also pointed out contradiction by reading the evidence available on record.
10. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23rd January, 2008 is a well reasoned and witnesses have categorically deposed in their respective testimony that the accused abused the complainant by taking his caste name and also interfered in his enjoyment of the property purchased by complainant.
5
2025:JHHC:17255
11. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on record, It transpires that three witnesses got examined before learned trial court they are C.W.-1 Md. Sahid Ali alias Saidul Rahman, C.W.-2 Shivprasad Thakur and C.W.-3 Chandradeo Baitha (complainant).
12. C.W.-1 is Md. Sahid Ali alias Saidul Rahman who has stated that incident is of two and half years back and he was on the land along with Chandradeo Baitha (complainant) and 10-11 persons had come for measurement of land, but the appellant did not allow the complainant to measure the land, then complainant told the appellant that he would not speak to him and thereafter, all the persons including Shivprasad Thakur, Mahendra Yadav, Chadradeo Baitha and others came to his home and he offered meal to them but in the meanwhile, the appellant had also come and told the complainant that he would twist complainant’s head. 13. C.W.-2 is Shivprasad Thakur who has stated that incident is of 05.01.2003 at 11:00 A.M. and he was along with the complainant at Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara for giving the land to raiyats and measurement of the land was going on, then Bhola Yadav (appellant herein) along with two of his accomplices visited to said land and asked the complainant not to measure the land and abused him and asked the complainant to go out from the land. This witness further stated that when the complainant insisted for measurement of the land, then Bhola Yadav
6
2025:JHHC:17255
(appellant herein) by saying “Harijan” abused the complainant and also told the complainant that if he visited the land, then accused/appellant would slit his throat and buried in the land, then they intervened.
14. C.W.-2 in his cross-examination has stated that one plot of the land of Balram Yadav is in eastern side of the land of complainant. He further stated that on the day of incident, he visited the place of occurrence on the invitation of the complainant and Balram Yadav (appellant’s father) as the land of the complainant and Balram Yadav were going to be measured. He also stated in cross-examination that the measurement was to be done in between the parties and an Amin (surveyor) was not involved for the measurement.
15. This witness has denied the suggestion of defense that only 54 bigha of land was got registered in the name of the complainant as the remaining payment was not made to the seller by the complainant. He also showed his ignorance regarding the terms of agreement by which complainant had to get executed registered sale deed by February, 1999. He had also denied the suggestion of defense that the complainant wanted to grab the land and the accused persons were not giving helping hands to him, that’s why the present case has been lodged.
16. C.W.-3 Chandradeo Baitha (complainant) has stated that the incident is of 05.11.2003 at 11:00 A.M. and on that day he
7
2025:JHHC:17255
visited the land in Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara for the purpose of measurement of the land which was given on batai (lease) to 11 persons and Shiv Prasad Thakur and Mahendra Yadav were also along with them and the person who had taken land on lease were also present. He further stated that when talk of measurement of the land was going on, then the appellant along with two persons came there and they had given push to him by saying “Dhobi Harijan” and appellant told the complainant that he could not allow the measurement of land by “Harijan Dhobi” and when it was objected by the complainant, then he said that complainant’s throat would be slit and buried in the land. Complainant told the appellant that it was his father on whose behest land had been purchased by him, as such, he should not interfere in it and he should send his father. Complainant further stated that, thereafter he returned from the land and given written application to S.P. and D.C. and thereafter on 25.11.2003 he received information that the appellant had uprooted the Kelia crop from the land. He further stated that on 01.12.2003 at about 06:30 P.M. Balram Yadav, Bhola Yadav (appellant herein) visited his house situated at Jirwabari (Sahibganj) and on call, he came out of the house and the complainant asked them to come inside the house, then Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) abused him by saying “Dhobi
8
2025:JHHC:17255
Harijan” and asked complainant to handover the land of Diyara to him, otherwise he would be liquidated.
Complainant, in cross-examination, has admitted that out of 125 bigha of land registry of 54 bighas of land in his name was done and remaining land is on the basis of agreement. He further stated that purchase agreement for 125 bighas of land was executed on 04.09.1998 but he got registered sale deed for only 54 bigha of land and sale deed of remaining land has not been got executed. He also conceded that as per agreement to sale, deed of entire land was to be executed by the seller till the end of February and March, 1999. He also stated that he had not filed a case under Specific Performance Act. He denied the suggestion of defense that the said agreement has become invalid but, he conceded that it is not written in the said agreement that by the time sale deeds for entire land were not executed, the said agreement shall be valid. He also stated that no step was taken by him for getting executed the registry of remaining land. He has also denied suggestion of defense that, remaining land which is under his possession, he wanted to continue with the possession with the aid of the bad elements. He further conceded that towards eastern side of his 125 bigha of land, there is land of Balram Yadav (appellant’s father). He has also brought on record two agreement deeds dated 04.09.1998 and 01.04.1998, which has been executed in favour of complainant and one Mani Kant
9
2025:JHHC:17255
Rajak (son of complainant) and agreement which has been executed by Abdul Kareem in favour of complainant, Balram Yadav has also put his signature as one of the witness and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively. He has also brought on record different registered sale deeds dated 20.051999, 04.06.1999 and 04.09.1999 and the same have been marked as Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 3/10 respectively. He categorically stated that he is having possession of the land for which sale deed already executed and the land for which deed of agreement is in his favour.
17. Now, this Court proceeds to examine two original agreement to sale brought by complainant as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively.
18. In first agreement to sale 15 sellers have agreed to sell 99 bigha 15 kattha land for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,700/- out of which Rs. 80,000 had been paid by the complainant, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 39,700/- is agreed to be paid at the time of registry of the said land and registry would be done by the end of February, 1999. Second agreement to sale has been executed by 6 sellers in favour of Mani Kant Rajak who happens to be the son of complainant, wherein it has been agreed that seller would sell 21 bigha, 10 kattha, 7 dhur of land for a consideration of Rs. 25,801/- out of which Rs. 16,001 had already been paid by the
10
2025:JHHC:17255
complainant remaining amount of Rs. 9,800/- is agreed to be paid at the time of registration of land.
19. From perusal of evidence of complainant, it is very much clear that out of 125 bigha of land in Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara, sale deeds for 54 bighas of land has been got registered. From both the agreements, it is clear that certain consideration amount, complainant has yet to pay to the seller which is admittedly complainant had not paid till the time of his deposition before learned trial court. This is also admitted position that there is a land of Balram Yadav (appellant’s father) towards the eastern side of the complainant’s land and the complainant at the behest of father of appellant entered into an agreement with seller for sale of the 125 bighas of land. Balram Yadav, father of the appellant and appellant looked after the said land for some time and the complainant was having grievance that they did not give the agricultural produce to the complainant then dispute arose between them, which resulted into taking the control of the land (purchased/agreed to be purchased) from appellant’s father.
20. C.W.-1 and C.W.-2 has stated that for the purpose of land measurement of the land, complainant visited the said land on the day of alleged incident, but C.W.- 2 has stated in his crossexamination that he visited the land (Hariprasad and Rampur
11
2025:JHHC:17255
Diyara) i.e. place of occurrence on the invitation of Balram Yadav and the complainant, for measurement of their land.
21. As far as C.W.-1 is concerned, he has stated that he was very much present when the incident took place and he has stated to extent only that the appellant along with two others visited the place of occurrence (land of Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara) and asked the complainant not to measure the land, upon which C.W.-1 along with complainant and others came to the house of C.W.-1 where they took their meal and the meanwhile the appellant also came there and told that he would twist the head of complainant. However, C.W.-2 has stated that the complainant was abused by saying “Harijan” when the complainant insisted for measurement of the land. But this fact has not been found corroborated from C.W.-1, as he has stated that when the appellant forbade them from measuring the land, all the persons moved towards his house. Complainant has also stated that on that day he visited the land at Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara for the purpose of measurement of land which was given on batai (lease) to 11 persons and Shiv Prasad Thakur and Mahendra Yadav were also along with them and the persons who had taken the land on lease were also present.
22. As far as second incident is concerned, it is stated by the complainant (C.W.-3) in his testimony that on 01.12.2003 at 06:30 P.M. the appellant along with his father and others came to
12
2025:JHHC:17255
his residence and called him, then the complainant came out then Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) abused him by saying “Harijan Dhobi”. This fact has not been corroborated from the complaint itself because in the complaint, the complainant has made no specific allegation of giving abuse by anyone, rather the allegation is general in nature.
23. The above said incident as stated by complainant does not find corroboration from any other evidence/material available on record. Even the complainant has not stated that the said incident was seen and or heard by anyone or not. As per complainant’s version complainant is having acrimonious relation with appellant prior to alleged incident of 01.12.2003 and incident narrated by complainant appears to be improbable and this is one of the reason, on account of which learned trial court exonerated Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) from the charges and acquitted him in the present case.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 has held that offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste and if the parties are litigating over possession of the land, the allegation of hurling of
13
2025:JHHC:17255
abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person belongs from a Scheduled Caste, the offence under the Act is not made out.
Also, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Hitesh Verma (Supra) has reiterated the law propounded in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P ., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 wherein Apex Court set aside the impugned judgment holding it total frivolous where party litigating under the aegis of civil dispute pertaining to certain property had made allegation of abusing in the caste of the so-called victim as he belongs from Schedule caste.
25 . Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. Venkateswaran V. P. Bakthavatchalam reported in (2023) 11 SCC 182 has held that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings and initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is an abuse of process of law and court.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2020) 4 SCC 761 has deprecated the misuse of the Act by filing false case which required to be rectified by the interference of the Court. Relevant Para of the above stated judgment is quoted hereunder -
14
2025:JHHC:17255
52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse.
26 . From above said legal propositions and evidences as stated in preceding paragraphs, it is clear that land has been agreed to be purchased by the complainant at the behest of father of appellant with the assurance that father of the appellant would take care of the said land and it had been taken care for some time, but as the appellant side did not give the agricultural produce of the said land to the complainant, then the land was taken back from them and was given to other bataidar .When measurement of land was being done by the complainant then, it was obstructed by the appellant. Shivprasad Thakur (C.W.-2) has stated in his cross-examination that he visited to the place of occurrence on invitation of the complainant and father of the appellant as land of both of them had to be measured. From above stated facts, it transpires that there is dispute of land between both the sides and possibility of false implication of the appellant by saying that appellant abused complainant in the caste name cannot be ruled out that too taken into consideration the testimony of C.W.-1 as he has not uttered a word that
15
2025:JHHC:17255
appellant had ever given abuse to the complainant in the caste name.
27. Above said aspects have not been considered by the learned trial Court. Considering the totality of the aforesaid evidences and the legal propositions, this Court is of considered view that the appellant/accused is entitle for the benefit of doubt.
28. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in Special Case No. 40 of 2005 whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(V) and (X) of the S.C./S.T. Act ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to undergo RI for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
29. Resultantly, the instant Criminal Appeal is, hereby allowed. 30. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
31. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 1st day of July, 2025 Abhishek/- A.F.R.
16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether caste-based abuse allegations arising from a private land dispute established offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (x) of the SC/ST Act.
Whether the complainant's testimony, uncorroborated on the abusive utterances, could sustain the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hitesh Verma v. State of UttarakhandRelied on¶24
(2020) 10 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.Relied on¶24
(2008) 12 SCC 531 · Who else cites this
B. Venkateswaran V. P. BakthavatchalamRelied on¶25
(2023) 11 SCC 182 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶25
(2020) 4 SCC 761 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhola Yadav
State of Jharkhand
Arun Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
