Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay Parmeshwar Ghodake And Anr on 28 October, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
apeal 1341-06.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SNEHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2006
NITIN
CHAVAN
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant
Digitally signed
by SNEHA V/s.
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2021.10.29 Sanjay Parmeshwar Ghodake
and Anr. ..Respondents
10:19:02 +0530
----
Mr. Y.Y. Dabake, APP for the Appellant/State.
None for the Respondents.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
RESERVED ON : 27 OCTOBER 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 28 OCTOBER 2021
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Appeal by the State against acquittal of the
Respondents-accused from an offence punishable under Section
506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955.
2. The prosecution case may be stated thus:
That the complainant Janardhan Rajguru is a resident of
Hannur, Taluka Akkalkot, District Solapur. Ms. Ashwini
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 6
apeal 1341-06.doc
Manohar Rajguru is the niece of the complainant. At the relevant
time Ashwini was taking education at Anant Chaitanya Prashala
in IXth standard. According to the prosecution juvenile "S" (being
a juvenile, his name is redacted) used to tease Ashwini. On
06.01.2003 at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. when Ashwini was
proceeding to her school along with her friends Mangal Kalshetty,
Kalpana Fasage and Kamal Ghodke, the juvenile "S" is alleged to
have met her on the way and asked her whether she loves him. It
is also alleged that "S" abused her on the basis of her caste by
saying "Chambarde". Ashwini disclosed the incident to her
family members whereupon complainant accosted "S" as to why
he had made obscene approaches and used abusive words to his
niece. A scuffle ensued between them. It is said that "S"
thereafter ran away from the spot.
3. Thereafter at about 9.45 a.m. "S" came on the spot along
with the Respondents who are respectively his brother and father
and they started abusing the complainant on the basis of his caste
by saying "Chambardya Tula Lai Masti Aali, Tula Chirun Takto".
It is said that Respondent No.1 was having a sword in his hand
and he made an attempt to assault the complainant. The persons
who had gathered on the spot including one Manik Balshankar
snatched the sword from the hands of Respondent No.1. It is said
that the Respondent went away after threatening the
complainant.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 6
apeal 1341-06.doc
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Janardhan an
offence came to be registered with police station Akkalkot North
under relevant Sections and after investigation a chargesheet
came to be filed.
5. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the
Respondents under the aforesaid Sections to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the
Respondent is of total denial and false implication.
6. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses
namely PW-1 Janardhan Rajguru, PW-2 Shivanand Lokhande,
PW-3 Parshuram Balshankar, PW-4 Ashavini Rajguru PW-5
Magal Kalshetty, PW-6 Manik Balshankar, PW-7 Mallikarjun
Umbarje and PW-8 Mujib Osman Karjatkar and produced the
record of investigation. The Respondents also examined one
witness in defence DW-1-Sopan More.
7. The learned Special Judge at Solapur by the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 30 July 2004 in Special Case No. 6 of
2003 has acquitted the Respondents. Hence, this Appeal.
8. I have heard the learned APP. None appears for the
Respondents. With the assistance of the learned APP, I have
gone through the record.
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 6
apeal 1341-06.doc
9. It is submitted by the learned APP that there is evidence to
show that the Respondents had abused the complainant in a
public place on the basis of his caste and had also threatened him.
It is submitted that the caste of the complainant and that of the
Respondents/accused has been stated in the prosecution evidence
which is sufficient. He submitted that the incident happened in a
public place and considering the prosecution evidence, the
learned Special Judge was not justified in acquitting the
Respondents.
10. I have considered the circumstances and the submissions
made. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the Respondents
mainly on the ground that the caste of the complainant and that
of the Respondent's has not been conclusively established on
record. The learned Special Judge has found that the allegations
of threatening the niece of the complainant are against the
juvenile. The learned Special Judge has also found that the
prosecution has failed to establish the precise spot of the incident
at which the Respondent had abused and had threatened the
complainant.
11. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under:
"3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
.....
.....
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 6
apeal 1341-06.doc
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view.
....
....
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a team which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend
to five years and with fine."
It can thus be seen that the offence requires that
complainant/victim/aggrieved party has to belong to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. At the same time, the accused must
not belong or be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. This is a prerequisite for the offence. Next it is required to
be established that the accused had intentionally insulted or
intimidated the complainant/aggrieved person with intent to
humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
in any place, within a public view.
12. A perusal of the prosecution evidence clearly shows that
prosecution had failed to establish on the basis of the evidence on
record that the complainant was belonging to Scheduled Caste.
According to the defence taken by the Respondents apart from
total denial, they also claimed that they belong to Dhangar
community which is a scheduled Tribe and therefore no offence
could be said to have been made out against them under the said
Act. The prosecution has also failed to show that the
Respondents do not belong or they are not the members of the
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 6
apeal 1341-06.doc
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes which is the prerequisite
for the offence under the said Act.
13. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned
Special Judge is a plausible view. It is now well settled that in an
appeal against acquittal, this court can justifiable interfere only
where the view taken by the Trial Court is shown to be perverse
or is an impossible view. To put it differently even where two
views are equally possible and the Trial Court chooses one out of
them, the Appellate Court is not justified in interfering on the
ground that the other view is more plausible (see the decision of
the Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Ors. V/s. State of
Karnataka1).
14. Applying the said principle, in my considered view, no case
for interference is made out. The appeal is without any merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.)
1 (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 415
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 6
