Bachchu Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 282 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bachchu Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 January, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 598 of 2012

        (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2012 passed by
      learned District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 291 of 2005)
                                          -----

1. Bachchu Yadav

2. Amravati Devi ... .... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... .... Respondent

PRES ENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

    For the Appellants : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
    For the State      : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
                                    -----
By Court :
         Heard the parties

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2012 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 291 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the court below has convicted the appellants for six months for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. On the basis of C.P. Case No. 550 of 2003, Sadar Putki PS Case No. 83 of 2003 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 506, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The case of the complainant/informant is brother of the victim lady who had gone to her house on 30.04.2003. Incidence took place between Amaravati Devi (Appellant No.2) and the sister of the complainant when she he had gone for taking water from a public tap. It is alleged that she called his sister by caste name and threw her bucket from there. It is also alleged that appellant no. 1 Bachchu Yadav also abused his sister by calling her caste name while she was returning from the place of occurrence. When the complainant went to her rescue, he was also abused and was assaulted by them and an attempt of life was also made. It is also alleged that an attempt on his life was made by squeezing his scrotum.

4. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 506, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After cognizance, charge was framed and accused persons were put on trial.

5. Altogether four witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer, on the basis of which judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. Aggrieved by the said

judgment, instant appeal has been filed by the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there has been inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The incidence took place on 30.04.2003 as per the prosecution case, whereas from the endorsement of the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the complainant it appears that it was forwarded for the FIR being registered on 14.07.2003. There is an inordinate delay of three months in Filing F.I.R, without any explanation for the delay.

7. Complaint is completely silent about the name of the brother of the complainant with whom the initial incidence took place on the dispute for taking water. Although she has been named as the sister of the complainant, but her name has not been stated. In para-3 her name has been incorrectly stated as Amaravati Devi, which is the name of Appellant No.2.

8. Minor altercation over taking water from the public tap has been blown out of proportion to allege offence under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to make the offence serious in nature.

9. Apart from the complainant, three witnesses have been examined but no independent witness has been examined in the present case. Falsity of testimony of PW1, Manhaudari Devi claims to be the victim of the said incidence, will be apparent from para 3 of the cross-examination, wherein she has stated that her statement was recorded by the police ten days after the incidence, whereas the case was lodged after about two and half months. She has further deposed that she had taken her brother for treatment to the hospital, but no medical evidence has been brought on record in the hospital.

10. PW 2, who is the husband of the victim-PW1, is not the eye witness to the incidence.

He has deposed that for one week she was treated in the hospital but there is no medical evidence in support of it. He has further stated that his statement was recorded only on next day after incidence, which is also apparently false. Two witnesses namely, Laldeo Ram and Bahadur Ram, have been withheld by the complainant from examination, although their names have been stated as witnesses in the complaint petition.

11. Lastly it is submitted that offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not be made out as there is no evidence to show that the incidence took in public view. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on a. 1996 SCC Online Bom. 649 b. 1997 SCC Online Ker. 280 c. Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710

12. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not

be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment.

13. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

14. There is much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not be made out in the present case, as minor altercation took place on a dispute between two ladies in taking water from public bore-well. There is not a shred of document in support of any injury sustained by any one, although tall claims have been made regarding hospitalization. On a combined reading of evidence it appears that the incidence was confined to exchange of verbal abuse and scuffle between both sides. There is no material to show that any premeditated assault took place by any weapon. Whatever happened was on the spur of moment and therefore requisite intention to make out the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not be made out. The said offence is intended for cases where the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe are subjected to humiliation by any means, on account of his caste status. The Act was meant to cover all disputes between a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and others. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed under the Special Act is not sustainable.

15. As far as offences under other sections are concerned, in view of the unexplained delay in moving the law into motion, material contradictions appearing in the testimony of witnesses, which has not been supported by independent witnesses, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubt.

In the result the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 11th January, 2024 NAFR/ AKT/Satayendra

Uploaded