The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for interfering with land possession and damaging crops.
Appellant need not surrender for a period of three months due to paralysis.
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.
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1179
A
>
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLi
v.
ST ATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1967 of 2008)
DECEMBER 4, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(1)(v) - Evidence established that c accused interfered with possession and enjoyment of rights of the complainant over land and also damaged sugarcane crops thereon by using a tractor - Complainant belonged to ST community - Held: Accused liable to be convicted ul s.3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act as a/so u/s.427 /PC - Penalp Code, 1860 - s.427 .
Words and Phrases - Mischief - Meaning of - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 425.
Criminal Law - Conviction under Atrocities Act and underE /PC - However, accused stated to be suffering from paralysis - Hence, direction issued that he need not surrender for 3 months - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989- s.3(1)(v) - Penal Code, 1860 - s.427. F
F
The prosecution case was that appellant interfered with the possession and enjoyment of PW1 over the land in question and also damaged the sugarcane crops thereon by using a tractor. PW1 belonged to the G Scheduled Tribe Community .
In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged her conviction under s.427 IPC and s.3(1 )(v) of the Atrocities
1179
H
1180
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. s.3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Cast~s and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 8 makes punishable any wrongful dispossession of any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his k land or premises or interference with the enjoyment of his rights over his land, pr«;!mises or water. PWs 1, 2 & 3 have proved that the accused had not only interfered C with the possession and enjoyment of the claimant over the land, but also damaged the crops thereon. Therefore, the Higli Court was justified in holding the accused guilty of offence punishable under s.3(1 )(v) of the Atrocities Act. [Para 8, 10 and 11] [1184-B, C, D, E]
D
1.2. So far as s.427 IPC is concerned, the exp,ressiqn "mischief' has been defined in s.425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any E person, causes the destruction of any property etc. In the instant. case the evidence on record clearly establishes that the sugarcane stems in the fields of the claimant were totally destroyed by using a tractor. Therefore, s.427 IPC is clearly established. [Para 11] [1184-E-F]
F
1.3. However, it was stated before this Court that appellant had suffered from paralysis on the left side of her body and inspite of treatment is unable to walk. In view of the statement made, it is directed that for a period of three months the appellant need not surrender. [Paras G 12 and 13] [1184-G-H; 1185-A-B]
"
, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1°967 of 2008. ·
H From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2007 of the High
I ...
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOU v. STATE OF GUJARAT 1181
>
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 920 of A 1996.
Aniruddha P. ly1ayee, Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Rucha A. Mayee and Sanjay Visen for the Appellant.
Yashank Adhyaru, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky and Somnath for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
Appellant-original accused was owner of one agricultural
H
(2008] 16 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1182
A land bearing Survey No.128 of village Paniyari, Taluka Vyara. She agreed to sell the land to the complainant for Rs.1,45 000/ -. Complainant initially paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- by cheque. He thereafter paid another sum of Rs.60,000/-, entered into a writing for sale of the land and the appellant agreed to hand B over possession of the land in question. As per the complainant, after paying further sum of Rs.60,000/- he was given possession of the land in question by the appellant. The complainant was cultivating the land and had planted sugarcane plantation therein. He had already taken on~ crop. c of sugarcane and had left the field open awaiting for re,.grQwth of the sugarcane plants. On 24th January 1995, the appellant illegally and forcibly entered the land in question, tilled the land with the help of tractors and thereby committed substantial loss of crop to the complainant. It is also the case of the complainant o that the appellant used derogatory words against him. It is not in dispute that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe.
The complainant, Kanchhibhai (P.W.1) stated, inter alia, that the appellant had agreed to sell Survey Ng. 1~~ of village E Paniyari to him for a total sale price of Rs. 1 A5,000/ for whih agreement to sell was also entered into. He initially, paid a µm of Rs.40,000/- by cheque. Upon payment of Rs.60,00Q/,, the appellant had h,anded over possession of the land to him. He had takn water from the Irrigation Department for which he produced proof on record. He had cultivated sugarcane crop F on the land and sold the sugarcane to Ukai Region Cooperative Sugar Industry. He left the sugarcane plantation after harvesting for one more crop. He stated that apprehending dispossession, he filed a Civil Suit seeking injunction and the Court had granted ex-parte interim injunction. About 8 to 1 O G days after the court's injunction, the accused tilled the land. To resolve the dispute, he approached the accused but she did not give any reply. He, therefore, filed a case on 1st February, 1995. He stated that he is infirm and when he had gone to meet the accused, she had used bad and insulting language.
H
F ,
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLi v. STATE OF GUJARAT 1183 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,>
With reference to the evidence of the eye witnesses the trial court found the appellant guilty. In appeal the High Court was of the view that the real question that needed to be answered was whether appellant has committed offence punishable under Section 427 IPC and Sections 3(i)(iv) and 3(i)(v) of the Atrocities Act of which she was held guilty. The High Court after analyzing the evidence held that the ingredients of Section 3(i)(iv) of the Act was not established but as noted above the conviction was to be made in terms of Section 427 IPC and Section 3(i)(v) of the Atrocities Act.
A
B
c.
E
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities - (1) Whoev~r. not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred;
(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water."
G
H
~
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
,_
A
"Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both."
B
4.,
_.
E
E 11. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 3(i)(v) of the Act. So far as Section 427 is concerned, the expression "mischief' has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause F wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person causes the destruction of any property etc. In the instant case the evidence on record clearly establishes that the sugarcane stems in the fields of the claimants were totally destroyed by using a . tractor. Therefore, Section 427 IPC is clearly established'. The G sentence imposed suffers from no infirmity to warrant interference.
H
A
C
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLi v. STATE OF GUJARAT 1185 [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
she is unable to walk.
B.B.B.
Appeal dismissed.
I ~
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence established the appellant's guilt under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the destruction of sugarcane crops by the appellant constituted mischief under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the appellant's physical condition warranted a direction that she need not surrender for a period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Masumsha Hasanasha Musanan v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶60
[2000(3) SCC 557] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli
State of Gujarat
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
