Karam Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4636 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRA No. 892 of 2003

   • Karam Das Manikpuri, S/o Umenddas Manikpuri, aged about 31
     years, R/o Kaidymuda, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (CG)

                                                                ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.H Officer, PSH, AJK, Raigarh,
     Raigarh (CG)

                                                             ---- Respondent

For Appellant     : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate.
For Respondent    : Smt. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.


                   Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

                           Judgment On Board

21/07/2022 :

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 7.8.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raigarh in

Special Case No.35/2001 convicting the appellant under Section 3(1)

(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 6 months

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further

undergo RI for 2 months, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal.

2. Prosecution case is that the complainant (PW-1) Shantiyus Beg

belong to a ST category and the appellant is not the member of such

category. The appellant is the neighbour of the complainant. Earlier

on 18.12.2000, the appellant had beaten the complainant and the

complainant has also lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali,

Raigarh. Due to such prior incident, on 1.1.2001, at about 3 pm the

appellant came in front of door of the complainant and started abusing

him in the name of his caste and humiliated and also threatened to kill

him. The incident was witnessed by the complainant's brother-in-law

(PW-4) Devnees Kerketta and (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant.

3. The complainant has lodged the FIR on the date of the incident at

17.05 hours at Azad Police Station, Raigarh vide Ex.-P/1. During

investigation, caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.-

P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing

the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The

appellant abjured his guilt.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the appellant

examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was

recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein the appellant has

stated that he has been falsely implicated. There was previous enmity

on account of quarrel for installation of disc wire. He has also

examined one defence witness namely, Kishore Sahu (DW-1), who

has stated that on the date of the incident he had gone for picnic to

Chandrapur and was not present on the spot.

5. After appreciating the evidence, by the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned

above, however, acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section

294 and 506-B of the IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has

not properly appreciated the evidence for the reason that the

complainant belong to a particular community and the incident was not

regarding caste based atrocity, though the trial Court has acquitted the

appellant of other charges, but wrongly convicted the appellant in the

aforesaid section. So learned counsel prays to allow the Appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the

impugned judgment on submission that the trial Court has properly

appreciated the evidence and the judgment is well merited and it does

not call for any interference.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with

utmost circumspection.

9. (PW-1) Shantiyus Beg has deposed that the residence of the

appellant is in front of his house. He further deposed that prior to the

incident also, the appellant has raised quarrel with him for which he

has also lodged a report, but the Police has not taken any action on

such report. Being annoyed with the report, the appellant came in

front of his house and started abusing him in the name of his caste

and also used filthy languages. At the time of such abusing, he was

inside the house. The appellant has stated that though he has made

a complaint to the police, but nothing happened, so he again

threatened to kill him. When the complainant came out from his

house, the appellant pushed him and he fell down. He further

deposed that (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant and (PW-4) Devnees Kerketta

intervened in the matter. He stated that he belongs to ST community

and the police has seized his caste certificate (Ex.-P/4) vide seizure

memo (Ex.-P/3) by KL Kashyap (CSP). (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant and

(PW-4) Devnees Kerketta have also deposed in similar lines as that of

the complainant. (PW-3) Natwarlal Mahant also admits that in the

earlier complaint made by PW-1 against the appellant, he was also a

witness.

10. In the entire case, the prosecution has not been able to bring on

record as to for what reason the quarrel started between the appellant

and the complainant, though from the evidence it is explicit that the

quarrel took place because of the previous incident in which the Police

has not taken any action. So the dispute did not occur because of

caste consideration, but it appears that there was some previous

dispute, as the appellant has stated that there was some quarrel about

the disc wire, so for such reason, a false complaint has been made.

Therefore, inference can be drawn that the incident did not occur

because the victim belong to a particular caste, however, by chance

the complainant belongs to a particular caste and in such quarrel, if

some words are uttered calling the surname of the caste and

particularly when the appellant has already been acquitted of the

charge under Section 294 of the IPC, in the circumstances, it cannot

be said that there was insult or intimidation to the complainant on

account of the complainant belongs to a particular community, this

Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to

establish the charge that the appellant intentionally insulted, with

intent to humiliate the complainant because he belongs to a particular

community. Therefore, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 is not proved.

11. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed

on the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside

and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. His

bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today

in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC.

He shall appear before the higher Court, as and when directed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve