Chattisgarh High Court
Sonal Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 151 of 2021
Sonal Jain, W/o Ashwin Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o C-129, Himalaya
Height, Bank Road, Boirdadar, Raigarh Police Station Chakradharnagar,
Tah. And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the police thana - Sariya, District -
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
01-04-2021
Heard.
1. This criminal revision petition has been brought challenging the charge
framed against the applicant by order dated 21.1.2021.
2. The applicant is facing trial in Special Criminal Case No. 72 of 2020
before the Court of Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and
Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raigarh. Learned
trial Court has framed charges against the applicant under Sections
294, 506B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s),
3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act').
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant before this
Court is specifically challenging the framing of charges under Sections
3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. It is further submitted
that the FIR has been lodged on 1.1.2020 on the basis of the complaint
given by complainant - Sunita Nirala on 3.11.2019, which clearly shows
that all the incidents in which the complainant was abused by her caste
name and the atrocities committed were the incidents inside the house
of the applicant. Therefore, nothing has happened in the public view
which is a specific requirement to complete the commission of offence
under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. Further, there is
no material present at all to frame charge against the applicant under
Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.
4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration and Another, reported
in (1996) 9 SCC 766, in which it was held by the Supreme Court that the
Court has to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the
trial and that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction.
Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajnish
Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 845 of 2020 dated
14.1.2021, it is submitted that there is total absence of material for
framing charges under the Atrocities Act, hence, without any such prima
facie material, the charges framed under the Atrocities Act against the
applicant are not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the revision
petition be allowed and the impugned order about framing of charges
against the applicant may be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ State opposes the
submissions so made and submits, that though the applicant's counsel
referred to only the contents of the FIR, however, the statement of the
witnesses discloses, that there are two eyewitnesses of the incident that
has occurred, which shows that all the incidents have occurred in public
view.
6. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC
554, it is submitted that charges can be framed even if there is strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to
trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the
material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence
of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that
stage. Hence, the present revision petition is not sustainable, which
may be dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents present
on record.
8. Considered on the submissions. The copy of the charge-sheet which is
filed as Annexure-P/2 contains FIR. The FIR mentions that on the date
of incident the complainant was abused by this applicant by telling her
that she is a member of low caste and had the applicant known about it
she would never have employed her. It is alleged that this applicant
used to abuse the complainant in her caste name and also beat her
often. On another date when the father of the complainant came to
meet her, this applicant again abused her by telling that she is a
member of low caste and slapped her. This incident took place in front
of her father. The statement of complainant - Sunita Nirala is similar
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Khol Bahara Nirala is the father of the
complainant who has stated about witnessing the incident. The
applicant abused, threatened and thrashed the complainant and also
said that the complainant is a member of low caste and insulted her.
Another witness - Goutam Prasad Miri has witnessed one such incident
in which the complainant was abused by her caste name.
9. In the case of Daya Bhatnagar and Others vs. State, reported in
109 (2004) DLT 915, in which the expression 'public view' used in the
Atrocities Act has been explained. It was held that expression within
'public view' occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act means
within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also,
of a group of people of the place/locality/village. Thus, a wider meaning
has been given to the word public view by this judgment of Delhi High
Court. Further, the presence of witnesses on the spot can also be noted
from their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. when the
complainant was abused in her caste name hence, on this basis, there
appears to be presence of prima facie material for framing of charges
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
10. As regards, the framing of charge against the applicant under Section
3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, I am of this view that there is no prima
facie material present for framing of charge against him under Section
3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, which is as follows:
'3(2)(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule,
against a person or property, knowing that such person is
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall
also be liable to fine;'
11. The words are specific in this provision, that the offence must be that
which is mentioned in the schedule of the Amendment, 2016. The
schedule of the Amendment, 2016 mentions of offences under Sections
120(A), 120(B), 141 and 142 of the IPC. The other offences of IPC for
which the applicant has been charged are not included in this schedule.
Hence, the charge framed against the applicant under Section 3(2)(va)
of the Atrocities Act is without any basis and without any material.
12. After considering the submissions and the material present in this case
against the applicant, this revision petition is partly allowed. The framing
of charges against the applicant under Sections 294, 506B and 323 of
the IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are upheld which
needs no interference, however, framing of charge against the applicant
under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act is set aside.
13. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nimmi
