The Jharkhand High Court while acquitting the accused under Section 354 IPC and 3 (x) of the SC and S.T. Act observed that in each case of altercation or dispute involving a member of Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe and another person, the offence, as stated, will not be made out until and unless the victim was subjected to assault and abuse because of his caste identity and further touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight, between two warring section cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2012 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, in C. P. Case No.2400 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 448, 323, 354 IPC and 3(x) of the SC ST Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Sections 448, 323, 354 IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 3(x) of the SC. ST. Act
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of a free fight between both the sides being neighbours over a minor dispute of drainage and offence e under S.C. and S.T. Act will not be made out, as the incident did not take place in public view and further there was material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses regarding the words used in calling the Complainant by his caste name. Furthermore, the offence under Section 354 IPC will also not be made out as there is nothing on record to suggest that there was the intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant. It was further submitted that there is a material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the witnesses have consistently stated about the incident and on the point of delay in filing the complaint, it was submitted that the complainant had approached the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner for the same, but no action was taken which resulted in such delay in lodging the complaint.
Observations of the Court:
The court after perusing the materials on record noted that it is evident that the incident took place on a minor dispute over the drainage between the complainant party and the accused persons who are adjoining neighbours and further the incident took place on the spur of the moment and there is nothing to suggest that anybody sustained any injury.
Further, the court stated that for an offence under Section 354 IPC, the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman, is the fundamental ingredient and touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight, between two warring sections cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty and if in a free fight wearing apparels are torn, it will not invariably make out an offence under this Section and further on a combined reading of testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent that out of 7 accused persons, four were females and the predominant motive was free fight and not to outrage the modesty and the evidence on record does not make out offence under Section 354 IPC.
With regard to offence under Section 3(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act, the court agreed with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that in each case of altercation or dispute involving a member of Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe and another person, the offence, as stated, will not be made out until and unless the victim was subjected to assault and abuse because of his caste identity.
The decision of the Court:
The court partly allowed the appeal and concluded that the prosecution has proved the charge under Sections 448 / 323/ 34 IPC against the appellants and the conviction under these sections is affirmed and charges under Section 354 IPC and 3 (x) of the SC and S.T. Act is not proved for which they are acquitted of the charges.
Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw and ors. vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal [SJ] No.289 of 2012
Advocate for the Applicant: Mrs. J. Mazumdar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
