Allahabad High Court
Chhedi Lal vs Ram Ratan on 18 July, 2014
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court no 14. A.F.R/Reserved
Case: CRIMINAL REVISION NO.-992 of 1990
Revisionist:- Chhedi Lal
Opposite Party:-Ram Ratan
Counsel for the Revisionist:-J.N.Verma
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya. J.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 26.3.1990 in Revision No. 142 of 1989 allowing the revision and setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial court.
Brief facts of the case are that a charge sheet was filed against the oppoiste party under sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and under section 7 of (THE) Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 at police station Kakadev with the allegations that on 1.1.1986 the complainant Chhedi Lal at about 3.00 pm went to the 'pay' counter of hathkarda nirdeshalaya to get his pay, suddenly the opposite party stepped the foot of the complaint. At this the complainant complaint of the accused, at this the acccused called him "sale chaamar", and thretened to kill him. The occurrence was witnessed by Madan Lal and others. Thereafter, on the written complaint of the complainant F.I.R. was lodged.
Charges were framed against the opposite party under sections 504 and 506 IPC and under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.
The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined P.W.-1 Chhedi Lal, P.W.-2 Madan Lal, P.W.-3 Head Constable, Ram Dev Singh.
The learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties convicted the opposite party under section 7(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act for 2 months' R.I and a fine to the tune of Rs. 200/- and in default a R.I for 1 month's R.I and also convicted the opposite party under section 504 IPC to undergo one month's R.I and 3 months' R.I under section 506 I.P.C.
The opposite party feeling aggrieved by this conviction preferred criminal revision, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1989. The revisional court heard both the parties and allowed the revision thereby setting aside the order of conviction passed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has approached this court in revision.
Both the parties were not present at the time of hearing of the revision hence the learned AGA assisted the court and the AGA was heard.
This court has to examine whether there is any impropriety, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act runs as follows:
"7. Punishment for other offences arising out of "untouchability."- (1) whoever-
(a) prevents any person from exercising any right accuring to him by reason of the abolition of "untouchability" under article 17 of the Constitution; or
(b) molests, injures, annoys, obstructs or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to any person in the exercise of any such right or molests, injures, annoys or boycotts any person by reason of his having exercised any such right; or
(c) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, incites or encourages any person or class of persons or the public generally to practice "untouchability" in any form whatsoever;
(d) insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of "untouchability", a member of a Scheduled Castes;
[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.]
According to the aforesaid provisions punishment shall be in between one month and six months alongwith fine between one hundred rupees to five hundred rupees. The only evidence against the accused under section 7 of the Protection of Civil rights Act is that the opposite parties called the revionist as "Saale Chamar" but under section 7(1)(d) the above words are not covered. I feel that two ingredients are necessary to constitute an offence under section 7 (1)(d). Firstly that the aggrieved person should be of schedule caste and secondly he should have been insulted on the groung of untouchibility. On the mere uttering of words "saale chamar" the inference of insult of untouchibility cannot be drawn. According to this section insult or attempt to insult is a must.
The mere calling a brahmin a brahmin or a vaish a vaish or a chamaar a chamaar will not constitude any offence under section 7 (1)(d). It is well known that the word "Saale" is used by many people as a slang word but the word saale does not indicate any untouchibility or insult. Thus the Revisional Court has rightly held that no offence under section 7 (1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Right Act has been made out.
As far as section 504 IPC is concerned, section 504 of the I.P.C. runs as follows:
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
It has come in evidence that there was dispute between the accused and the complainant regarding giving of subscription of the committee, due to which the alleged words have said to have been spoken. So by no stretch of imagination there can be any inference that there is evidence of breach of peace. Hence the court below rightly concluded that no case under section 504 I.P.C. was made out.
Coming to section 506 IPC which runs as follows:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
[If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.]--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
The evidence adduced to prove the allegations against the accused under this section are that the accused said that he would kill the complainant. I think this would not be sufficient to constitute this offence. Even otherwise the trial court has not passed any sentence against the accused person under section 506 I.P.C. since the original judgment and its copy vary in this regard.
It has been observed in the judgement of the revisional court that the statement of the accused did not bear the signatures of the accused in the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the code. The revisional court also found some irregularities on the orde sheet of the judgment of the trial court. Thus, the trial court has not based its conviction on the basis of the evidence and record of the case but has based its findings on conjectures and surmises which could have not been sustained.
Hence, the order passed by the revisional court does not suffer from any irregularity illegality or impropriety due to which this revision is liable to be dismissed
The revision is dismissed.
Dated:18.07.2014
Sazia
