Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction And ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 1 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:17255
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 178 of 2008
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in Special Case No. 40 of
2005.
-------
Bhola Yadav, Son of Balram Yadav, resident of Village-
Ghormarapul Talbanna, P.S. -Sahibganj(M), District- Sahibganj
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 11.04.2025 Pronounced on 01.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in
Special Case No. 40 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 3(1)(V)
and (X) of the S.C./S.T. Act ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to
undergo RI for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/- and in default of payment of fine have to undergo further
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
2025:JHHC:17255
3. The present case came into an existence on the filing of a
complaint case by one Chandradeo Baitha son of late Sukhan
Baitha who stated therein, that he is a retired person and belongs
to Scheduled caste. It is further stated by the complainant that
one proposal for purchase of 125 bighas of land in Hariprasad
and Rampur Diyara area was advanced by Balram Yadav ( father
of the present appellant) and he had also given assurance to the
complainant that he would look after the said land.
One agreement to this effect was executed between the
seller and the complainant and rate of land was agreed at Rs.
1200/- per bigha and out of which Rs. 800/- per bighas for 125
bighas had already been paid by the complainant with a condition
that at the time of registration of said land, remaining amount of
Rs. 400 per bigha would be paid to the seller. Description of land
and name of seller has also been mentioned in the complaint.
It is further alleged by the complainant that the above said
land had been taken care of by Balram Yadav but he usurped the
produce of land and he did not give any account of produce of the
land and on complainant's query, he used to tell that produce
had been looted/taken away by the miscreants. On account of
above said conduct of Balram Yadav and appellant, complainant
took land under his control and had given contract/lease of land
to Jiaul Haque and ten other villagers on 01.09.2003 for a period
of one year and they sowed Kelai crop on the land. Thereafter, it
2025:JHHC:17255
is alleged that the person who took land on lease asked
complainant that they would sow parwal, then complainant along
with one Shiv Prasad Thakur (C.W.-2) and Mahendra Yadav
visited on the land for the purpose of measurement on
05.11.2003 at 11:00 A.M. When the land was being measured
and complainant was having interaction with lease holders, then
appellant along with two others came to the land with lathi and
pistol and called complainant "Harijan Dhobi" and also abused
him and asked the complainant to flee away from the land. It is
further alleged that when complainant forbade them from doing
so, then they extended threat that his throat would be slit and
thrown away, then after intervention of other person's,
complainant was taken away from there. It is also alleged that
accused persons cut Kelia sowed on the said land, then
complainant made an effort, to meet Balram Yadav (father of the
appellant) but Balram Yadav evaded meeting him. Complainant
received information regarding loot of Kelai crop on 25.11.2003
and he apprised the incident to higher officials but nothing was
done.
4. It is further alleged that on 01.12.2003, he was at his
residence at Jirwabari, (Sahibganj), then at 6:30 appellant and
his father along with two others abused complainant by saying
"Harijan" and asked to handover the aforesaid lands to them,
2025:JHHC:17255
otherwise he would lose his life, as such, complainant got scared
and on commotion accused persons fled away.
5. The above said complaint was numbered as P.C.R. case no.
234 of 2003 and present appellant and his father Balram Yadav
summoned by the learned Magistrate for the offence under
Section 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 after recording of pre summoning evidence.
Thereafter, on appearance of both the accused persons, charge
under Sections 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 Act were framed and explained to both the
accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. Complainant has examined as many as three witnesses in
the present case including himself and has also brought on
record the two original agreement to sale dated 04.09.1998 and
01.04.1998 and registered sale deeds dated 02.06.1999,
20.05.1999 and 04.06.1999.
7. There is no evidence led on behalf of defense.
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, learned
trial court convicted appellant under Sections 3(1) (v) and 3(1) (x)
of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but acquitted
Balram Yadav (father of the appellant). Hence, appellant preferred
the present appeal.
2025:JHHC:17255
9. It is urged on behalf of appellant, that, admittedly there is
land dispute between the informant and the accused side and
taking advantage of that dispute, the complainant has falsely
implicated the appellant in the present case by invoking provision
of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and civil
dispute pertaining to land has been given colour of a criminal
case. He further pointed out that, it is admitted position that
there is a land of Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) towards
eastern side of the purchased land of complainant and
complainant had only got sale deed registered for 54 bighas of
land but he has claimed to be in possession of the entire land i.e.
125 bigha of land. Complainant wanted support of appellant and
his father in grabbing the remaining land for which entire
consideration amount has not been paid by him but, as the
accused persons did not support the complainant, therefore the
present case has been lodged against them. He also pointed out
contradiction by reading the evidence available on record.
10. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State
submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 23rd January, 2008 is a well reasoned and
witnesses have categorically deposed in their respective testimony
that the accused abused the complainant by taking his caste
name and also interfered in his enjoyment of the property
purchased by complainant.
2025:JHHC:17255
11. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material
available on record, It transpires that three witnesses got
examined before learned trial court they are C.W.-1 Md. Sahid Ali
alias Saidul Rahman, C.W.-2 Shivprasad Thakur and C.W.-3
Chandradeo Baitha (complainant).
12. C.W.-1 is Md. Sahid Ali alias Saidul Rahman who has
stated that incident is of two and half years back and he was on
the land along with Chandradeo Baitha (complainant) and 10-11
persons had come for measurement of land, but the appellant did
not allow the complainant to measure the land, then complainant
told the appellant that he would not speak to him and thereafter,
all the persons including Shivprasad Thakur, Mahendra Yadav,
Chadradeo Baitha and others came to his home and he offered
meal to them but in the meanwhile, the appellant had also come
and told the complainant that he would twist complainant's head.
13. C.W.-2 is Shivprasad Thakur who has stated that incident
is of 05.01.2003 at 11:00 A.M. and he was along with the
complainant at Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara for giving the land
to raiyats and measurement of the land was going on, then Bhola
Yadav (appellant herein) along with two of his accomplices visited
to said land and asked the complainant not to measure the land
and abused him and asked the complainant to go out from the
land. This witness further stated that when the complainant
insisted for measurement of the land, then Bhola Yadav
2025:JHHC:17255
(appellant herein) by saying "Harijan" abused the complainant
and also told the complainant that if he visited the land, then
accused/appellant would slit his throat and buried in the land,
then they intervened.
14. C.W.-2 in his cross-examination has stated that one plot of
the land of Balram Yadav is in eastern side of the land of
complainant. He further stated that on the day of incident, he
visited the place of occurrence on the invitation of the
complainant and Balram Yadav (appellant's father) as the land of
the complainant and Balram Yadav were going to be measured.
He also stated in cross-examination that the measurement was to
be done in between the parties and an Amin (surveyor) was not
involved for the measurement.
15. This witness has denied the suggestion of defense that only
54 bigha of land was got registered in the name of the
complainant as the remaining payment was not made to the seller
by the complainant. He also showed his ignorance regarding the
terms of agreement by which complainant had to get executed
registered sale deed by February, 1999. He had also denied the
suggestion of defense that the complainant wanted to grab the
land and the accused persons were not giving helping hands to
him, that's why the present case has been lodged.
16. C.W.-3 Chandradeo Baitha (complainant) has stated that
the incident is of 05.11.2003 at 11:00 A.M. and on that day he
2025:JHHC:17255
visited the land in Hariprasad and Rampur Diyara for the
purpose of measurement of the land which was given on batai
(lease) to 11 persons and Shiv Prasad Thakur and Mahendra
Yadav were also along with them and the person who had taken
land on lease were also present. He further stated that when talk
of measurement of the land was going on, then the appellant
along with two persons came there and they had given push to
him by saying "Dhobi Harijan" and appellant told the complainant
that he could not allow the measurement of land by "Harijan
Dhobi" and when it was objected by the complainant, then he
said that complainant's throat would be slit and buried in the
land. Complainant told the appellant that it was his father on
whose behest land had been purchased by him, as such, he
should not interfere in it and he should send his father.
Complainant further stated that, thereafter he returned from the
land and given written application to S.P. and D.C. and thereafter
on 25.11.2003 he received information that the appellant had
uprooted the Kelia crop from the land. He further stated that on
01.12.2003 at about 06:30 P.M. Balram Yadav, Bhola Yadav
(appellant herein) visited his house situated at Jirwabari
(Sahibganj) and on call, he came out of the house and the
complainant asked them to come inside the house, then Balram
Yadav (father of the appellant) abused him by saying "Dhobi
2025:JHHC:17255
Harijan" and asked complainant to handover the land of Diyara to
him, otherwise he would be liquidated.
Complainant, in cross-examination, has admitted that out of
125 bigha of land registry of 54 bighas of land in his name was
done and remaining land is on the basis of agreement. He further
stated that purchase agreement for 125 bighas of land was
executed on 04.09.1998 but he got registered sale deed for only
54 bigha of land and sale deed of remaining land has not been got
executed. He also conceded that as per agreement to sale, deed of
entire land was to be executed by the seller till the end of
February and March, 1999. He also stated that he had not filed a
case under Specific Performance Act. He denied the suggestion of
defense that the said agreement has become invalid but, he
conceded that it is not written in the said agreement that by the
time sale deeds for entire land were not executed, the said
agreement shall be valid. He also stated that no step was taken by
him for getting executed the registry of remaining land. He has
also denied suggestion of defense that, remaining land which is
under his possession, he wanted to continue with the possession
with the aid of the bad elements. He further conceded that
towards eastern side of his 125 bigha of land, there is land of
Balram Yadav (appellant's father). He has also brought on record
two agreement deeds dated 04.09.1998 and 01.04.1998, which
has been executed in favour of complainant and one Mani Kant
2025:JHHC:17255
Rajak (son of complainant) and agreement which has been
executed by Abdul Kareem in favour of complainant, Balram
Yadav has also put his signature as one of the witness and the
same has been marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively.
He has also brought on record different registered sale deeds
dated 20.051999, 04.06.1999 and 04.09.1999 and the same have
been marked as Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 3/10 respectively. He
categorically stated that he is having possession of the land for
which sale deed already executed and the land for which deed of
agreement is in his favour.
17. Now, this Court proceeds to examine two original agreement
to sale brought by complainant as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2
respectively.
18. In first agreement to sale 15 sellers have agreed to sell 99
bigha 15 kattha land for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,700/- out of
which Rs. 80,000 had been paid by the complainant, whereas
remaining amount of Rs. 39,700/- is agreed to be paid at the time
of registry of the said land and registry would be done by the end
of February, 1999. Second agreement to sale has been executed
by 6 sellers in favour of Mani Kant Rajak who happens to be the
son of complainant, wherein it has been agreed that seller would
sell 21 bigha, 10 kattha, 7 dhur of land for a consideration of Rs.
25,801/- out of which Rs. 16,001 had already been paid by the
2025:JHHC:17255
complainant remaining amount of Rs. 9,800/- is agreed to be
paid at the time of registration of land.
19. From perusal of evidence of complainant, it is very much
clear that out of 125 bigha of land in Hariprasad and Rampur
Diyara, sale deeds for 54 bighas of land has been got registered.
From both the agreements, it is clear that certain consideration
amount, complainant has yet to pay to the seller which is
admittedly complainant had not paid till the time of his
deposition before learned trial court. This is also admitted
position that there is a land of Balram Yadav (appellant's father)
towards the eastern side of the complainant's land and the
complainant at the behest of father of appellant entered into an
agreement with seller for sale of the 125 bighas of land. Balram
Yadav, father of the appellant and appellant looked after the said
land for some time and the complainant was having grievance
that they did not give the agricultural produce to the complainant
then dispute arose between them, which resulted into taking the
control of the land (purchased/agreed to be purchased) from
appellant's father.
20. C.W.-1 and C.W.-2 has stated that for the purpose of land
measurement of the land, complainant visited the said land on
the day of alleged incident, but C.W.- 2 has stated in his cross-
examination that he visited the land (Hariprasad and Rampur
2025:JHHC:17255
Diyara) i.e. place of occurrence on the invitation of Balram Yadav
and the complainant, for measurement of their land.
21. As far as C.W.-1 is concerned, he has stated that he was
very much present when the incident took place and he has
stated to extent only that the appellant along with two others
visited the place of occurrence (land of Hariprasad and Rampur
Diyara) and asked the complainant not to measure the land, upon
which C.W.-1 along with complainant and others came to the
house of C.W.-1 where they took their meal and the meanwhile
the appellant also came there and told that he would twist the
head of complainant. However, C.W.-2 has stated that the
complainant was abused by saying "Harijan" when the
complainant insisted for measurement of the land. But this fact
has not been found corroborated from C.W.-1, as he has stated
that when the appellant forbade them from measuring the land,
all the persons moved towards his house. Complainant has also
stated that on that day he visited the land at Hariprasad and
Rampur Diyara for the purpose of measurement of land which
was given on batai (lease) to 11 persons and Shiv Prasad Thakur
and Mahendra Yadav were also along with them and the persons
who had taken the land on lease were also present.
22. As far as second incident is concerned, it is stated by the
complainant (C.W.-3) in his testimony that on 01.12.2003 at
06:30 P.M. the appellant along with his father and others came to
2025:JHHC:17255
his residence and called him, then the complainant came out
then Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) abused him by saying
"Harijan Dhobi". This fact has not been corroborated from the
complaint itself because in the complaint, the complainant has
made no specific allegation of giving abuse by anyone, rather the
allegation is general in nature.
23. The above said incident as stated by complainant does not
find corroboration from any other evidence/material available on
record. Even the complainant has not stated that the said
incident was seen and or heard by anyone or not. As per
complainant's version complainant is having acrimonious relation
with appellant prior to alleged incident of 01.12.2003 and
incident narrated by complainant appears to be improbable and
this is one of the reason, on account of which learned trial court
exonerated Balram Yadav (father of the appellant) from the
charges and acquitted him in the present case.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in
the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710 has held that offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason
that the victim belongs to such caste and if the parties are
litigating over possession of the land, the allegation of hurling of
2025:JHHC:17255
abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If
such person belongs from a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
the Act is not made out.
Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Hitesh Verma
(Supra) has reiterated the law propounded in the case of Gorige
Pentaiah v. State of A.P., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531
wherein Apex Court set aside the impugned judgment holding it
total frivolous where party litigating under the aegis of civil
dispute pertaining to certain property had made allegation of
abusing in the caste of the so-called victim as he belongs from
Schedule caste.
25. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.
Venkateswaran V. P. Bakthavatchalam reported in (2023) 11
SCC 182 has held that the private civil dispute between the
parties is converted into criminal proceedings and initiation of the
criminal proceedings for the offences Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is an
abuse of process of law and court.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. State
of Maharashtra reported in (2020) 4 SCC 761 has deprecated
the misuse of the Act by filing false case which required to be
rectified by the interference of the Court. Relevant Para of the
above stated judgment is quoted hereunder -
2025:JHHC:17255
52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted
to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a
false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the
human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act.
On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to
backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report,
much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due
to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings
irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can
be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such
misuse.
26. From above said legal propositions and evidences as stated
in preceding paragraphs, it is clear that land has been agreed to
be purchased by the complainant at the behest of father of
appellant with the assurance that father of the appellant would
take care of the said land and it had been taken care for some
time, but as the appellant side did not give the agricultural
produce of the said land to the complainant, then the land was
taken back from them and was given to other bataidar .When
measurement of land was being done by the complainant then, it
was obstructed by the appellant. Shivprasad Thakur (C.W.-2) has
stated in his cross-examination that he visited to the place of
occurrence on invitation of the complainant and father of the
appellant as land of both of them had to be measured. From
above stated facts, it transpires that there is dispute of land
between both the sides and possibility of false implication of the
appellant by saying that appellant abused complainant in the
caste name cannot be ruled out that too taken into consideration
the testimony of C.W.-1 as he has not uttered a word that
2025:JHHC:17255
appellant had ever given abuse to the complainant in the caste
name.
27. Above said aspects have not been considered by the learned
trial Court. Considering the totality of the aforesaid evidences and
the legal propositions, this Court is of considered view that the
appellant/accused is entitle for the benefit of doubt.
28. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Sahibganj in Special Case No. 40 of
2005 whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(V) and (X) of the
S.C./S.T. Act ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to undergo RI
for one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, is
hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
29. Resultantly, the instant Criminal Appeal is, hereby allowed.
30. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bond.
31. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 1st day of July, 2025
Abhishek/- A.F.R.
