Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Singh And Another vs State Of C.G on 10 November, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on 29.08.2022
Judgment Delivered on 10.11.2022
CRA No. 610 of 2002
1. Pardesi Ram (deleted since dead) (appeal abated)
2. Shiv Singh S/o Pardesi Ram Verma, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Dheevra, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Anand Ram, S/o Kaliram Dheemar, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Dheevra, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Heeravati Bai (deleted since dead) (appeal abated)
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Kharora, District-
Raipur (CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate
For State : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Judgment
1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 26th April 2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Special
Court, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.141 of 2001, whereby the
appellants -Shiv Singh and Anand Ram have been held guilty of
commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the
-2-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short "Act of 1989") and Section 323 of IPC and
sentenced them as under :-
Appellants Conviction Sentence
Shiv Singh u/S 3 (1) (x) of the RI for 6 months and fine of
SC/ST Act and
Rs.500/- and in in default of
Section 323 of IPC
payment of fine to further
undergo RI for 1 month.
Anand Ram u/S 3 (1) (x) of the RI for 6 months and fine of
SC/ST Act and
Rs.500/- and in in default of
Section 323 of IPC
payment of fine to further
undergo RI for 1 month.
2. Facts
relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 23.04.2001 at
about 8:00 PM, complainant Ramnarayan, Sarpanch of village got
knowledge that Pardeshi and his wife Heerawavti are engaged in
selling illicit liquor. After receipt of information, complainant alongwith
Shrawan Kumar Verma (Peon of the Village Panchayat) and Milan
Yadav went to house of Pardeshi and found that co-accused Anand
Ram was consuming liquor, which was objected by them, upon
which, the accused Pardeshi abused him in filthy language as well as
by his cast. Co-accused Heeravati also abused him by his caste.
Anand Ram assaulted the complainant and abused him by is caste
as also Shiv Singh, son of Pardeshi Ram abused and assaulted him.
Incident was reported to concerned Police Station, based upon
which, FIR was registered against the accused persons for the
offence punishable under Section 294, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. After completion of
investigation, investigating agency submitted final report against four
persons namely Pardeshi Ram, Shiv Singh, Anand Ram, Heeravati
for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. Learned
trial Court, based on the material in the charge sheet, framed
charges against the accused persons for offence punishable under
Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC, to which,
they have denied. Learned trial Court proceeded with the trail against
the appellants. Prosecution examined as many as four witnesses
namely Ramnarayan (PW1), Shravan Kumar Verma (PW2), Milan
Yadav (PW3) Investigating Officer Sujeet Kumar (PW4) and exhibited
four documents as Written report (Ex.P1), FIR (Ex.P-2) Caste
Certificate of complainant (Ex.P-3) and Spot Map (Ex.P4) to bring
home the guilt of the accused persons. Statement of accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. One defence
witness namely Smt. Anjani Bai (DW1) was examined by the
accused. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties
held that the prosecution proved the charges under Section (3) (1) (x)
of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC against the accused
persons, convicted Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati for offence under
Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC and
accused Shiv Singh and Anand Ram under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Act of 1989, Section 323 of IPC and awarded sentences as
mentioned in paragraph- 1 of this judgment.
3. Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that two accused/appellants Pardeshi Ram and Heeravati
Bai died during pendency of this appeal and the appeal filed on their
behalf has been ordered to be abated and corrections to this effect
have been made in the cause title of memo of appeal. He contended
that as per case of prosecution, when complainant came to know that
Pardeshi Ram is engaged in selling illicit liquor in his house,
complainant along with two other persons went to house of late
Pardeshi and found, accused- Anandram consuming liquor there. He
contended that the incident took place inside the house, and
therefore, provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 would
not be attracted because as per case of prosecution, the incident did
not take place in public view. He next submitted that even if during
course of dispute which took place between the complainant and
Pardeshi Ram, Heeravati, Shiv Singh and Anandram, there is no
allegation that all the accused persons have abused him by his caste
only because he belongs to scheduled caste community, with an
intent to humiliate him and therefore also it cannot be said that the
appellants have committed an offence as defined under Section 3 (1)
(x) of the Act of 1989. In support of his contention, he places reliance
upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swaran
Singh and Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Anr.
(2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710 (para- 13, 14, 17, 18). In support of his
contention, he also referred to the deposition of the defence witness
Anjani Bai (DW1) to submit that the incident took place inside the
house of Late Pardeshi Ram and it is the complainant and two others
who have assaulted Pardeshi Ram. It is next contended by learned
counsel for the appellant that in the facts of the case, it cannot be
said that the appellants have committed an offence under Section 3
(1) (x) of the Act of 1989 when the place of incident is house of one of
the accused persons and as per the complaint, complainant himself
went inside the house of Late Pardeshi Ram and there some dispute
took place.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission of leaned
counsel for the State would submit that complainant being a
Sarpanch belongs to scheduled caste category. When the
complainant came to know about involvement of Late Pardeshi Ram,
one of the co-accused in selling of illicit liquor from his house, he
went there along with two other persons and at that relevant point of
time, Pardeshi Ram and other co-accused persons abused the
complainant by his caste which was witnessed by two independent
witnesses. Shrawan Verma (PW2) and Milan Yadav (PW3) have
stated in categorical terms that when complainant asked co-accused
Pardeshi not to sell illicit liquor, he abused him by his caste and
thereafter his wife also abused by his caste. He also clearly stated
that Anand Ram, Ramnarayan assaulted the complainant.
Prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. Judgment of conviction passed by learned trial
Court is on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, it does not call
for any interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
of the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, apart from other submissions, has
primarily raised two main grounds that the incident took place inside
the house of accused and is not within the public view, hence,
provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is not attracted
and consequently uttering the abusive words of caste of complainant
is not intentionally used to humiliate the complainant hence also the
offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 will not be attracted
against the appellants.
7. To appreciate the aforementioned submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant, I have perused the FIR placed on record as Ex.P-2
which was lodged within three hours of the incident . In FIR, it is
mentioned that upon receiving information that co-accused Pardeshi
Ram (since deceased) engaged in selling of illicit liquor, he along with
Shrawan Verma (Peon of Panchayat) and Milan Yadav went to house
of Pardeshi and found that he was engaged in selling illicit liquor. He
advised him not to sell liquor upon which he abused him by his
caste . The other persons also abused him by his caste and . Co-
accused Heeravati and Shiv Singh also abused him by his caste.
Complainant Ramnarayan is examined as PW1. In his evidence he
stated that after receiving complaint, he went to house of Pardeshi
where he found Pardeshi, Anand Ram, Heeravati present. Anand
Ram was consuming liquor. Shravan Kumar Verma, Peon of
Panchayat, who accompanied the complainant is examined as PW2.
In para-2 of examination-in-chief, he stated that in the evening at
about 6:30 to 7:00 they went to house of Pardeshi. Complainant
asked Pardeshi Ram not to sell illicit liquor. At that time Anand Ram,
co-accued, was found sitting consuming liquor. In para-7 of the cross-
examination, he made similar statement. Milan Yadav who
accompanied complainant is examined as PW3. In his statement
also, he stated that he along with Ramnarayan (PW1) and Shravan
Kumar Verma (PW2) went to house of accused Pardeshi. He further
stated that at the time of incident, Jain Lal also came there to rescue
complainant. Investigating Officer Sujeet Kumar is examined as PW4.
In his evidence he stated that he prepared the spot map, Ex.P-4 as
stated by the complainant. Perusal of spot map (Ex.P-4) proved by
Investigating Officer (PW4) mentions the place of incident by marking
it as "No.4" which is outside the house of Pardeshi. Written complain
is also marked as Ex.P-1 in which also it is mentioned that
complainant called Pardeshi Ram. Aforementioned evidence
available on record particularly spot map (Ex.P-4) would show that
the place of incident is outside the house. There is no mention in the
written complaint or FIR that the incident took place inside the house
nor it has been stated by the witnesses in specific terms regarding
place of incident to be inside the house. The prosecution witnesses
were not put any specific suggestion with regard to place of incident
to be inside the house of co-accused Pardeshi. Along with
complainant, two other persons were present and in front of them,
the appellants abused by caste.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs.
State through Standing Counsel and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435 while
considering the words used in provision under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Act of 1989 "place within public view" observed that even if the
remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public
are there (not merely relative or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view and held as under:-
"28.........Also, even if the remark is made inside
a building, but some members of the public are
there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the public view.
We must, therefore, not confuse the expression
"place within public view" with the expression
"public place". A place can be a private place but
yet within the public view. On the other hand, a
public place would ordinarily mean a place
which is owned or leased by the Government or
the municipality (or other local body) or gaon
sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not
by private persons or private bodies."
9. In the facts of the case as discussed above, evidence available on
record with regard to place of incident and also in the light of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, submission of learned
counsel for the appellant that offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Act of 1989 is not attracted, is not sustainable and it is hereby
repelled.
10. So far as second ground raised in this appeal i.e. use of word
"chamar" while abusing will not attract provision under Section 3 (1)
(x) of the Act of 1989 is concerned, to prove caste of complainant,
prosecution submitted caste certificate issued by the Competent
Authority mentioning that complainant belongs to scheduled caste
community. The complainant who is Sarpanch of the village after
receiving information that one of the co-accused Pardeshi was
engaged in selling of illicit liquor, he along with other persons went to
house of Pardeshi, called him and asked him not to sell the illicit
liquor, upon which, Pardeshi abused the complainant using word
"chamar". Similar words were also used by other co-accused
persons. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh (supra)
has considered the use of words "chamar" while abusing the
members of SC and ST and held as under :-
"21. Today the word "chamar" is often used
by people belonging to the so-called upper
castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult,
abuse and derision. Calling a person
"chamar" today is nowadays an abusive
language and is highly offensive. In fact, the
word "chamar" when used today is not
normally used to denote a caste but to
intentionally insult and humiliate someone.
22. It may be mentioned that when we
interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act we have
to see the purpose for which the Act was
enacted. It was obviously made to prevent
indignities, humiliation and harassment to
the members of SC/ST community, as is
evident from the Statement of Objects &
Reasons of the Act. Hence, while
interpreting Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we
have to take into account the popular
meaning of the word "chamar" which it has
acquired by usage, and not the etymological
meaning. If we go by the etymological
meaning, we may frustrate the very object of
the Act, and hence that would not be a
correct manner of interpretation.
23. This is the age of democracy and
equality. No people or community should be
today insulted or looked down upon,
and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is
also the spirit of our Constitution and is part
of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion,
the so-called upper castes and OBCs should
not use the word "chamar"' when addressing
a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if
that person in fact belongs to the "chamar"
caste, because use of such a word will hurt
his feelings. In such a country like ours with
so much diversity - so many religions,
castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all
communities and groups must be treated
with respect, and no one should be looked
down upon as an inferior. That is the only
way we can keep our country united.
24. In our opinion, calling a member of the
Scheduled Caste "chamar" with intent to
insult or humiliate him in a place within
public view is certainly an offence
under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether
there was intent to insult or humiliate by
using the word "chamar" will of course
depend on the context in which it was used."
11. In the case at hand also, the complainant who belongs to scheduled
caste community, when obstructed of selling of illicit liquor, the
accused person abused the complainant using word "chamar". Place
of incident is in front of house of accused- Pardeshi by the side of
road. It is not only the complainant person was abused but along with
complainant, two other persons also abused. In front of them,
complainant was being abused by using word "chamar" by the
accused persons. Though Milan (PW3) in his evidence has not
stated of abusing the complainant by appellant using word "chamar",
it will not make entire case of prosecution to be false where he made
allegation against Heeravati and further the evidence of Ramnarayan
(PW1) and Shrawan Kumar Verma (PW2) wherein they have clearly
stated the act of the appellant of abusing the complainant by caste
and also allegation as appearing in the FIR (Ex.P-2).
12. In the opinion of this Court, calling a member of scheduled caste,
"chamar", in the facts of the case, is with intent to insult or humiliate
him.
13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, second ground raised by
learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable and is
hereby repelled.
14. For the foregoing, I do not find any perversity in the impugned
judgment of conviction passed by learned Court below.
15. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
16. The appellants No. 2 & 3 are on bail. They may be sent to jail for
serving remaining period of sentence.
Sd/-/-/--
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
