Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26042
1 CRA-1486-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1486 of 2016
RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Kanishka Gupta - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Rahul Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
Heard On:10.09.2025
Delivered On:11.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
21.10.2016 pass in Special case No.83/2013 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Indore whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for fine of Rs.1000/- alogiwith default
stipulation of 3-3 months each and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 and sentenced for 1-1 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulation of 3-3 months S.I. each.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Radheshyam PW-1 belonging
to the Scheduled Caste community as per Certificate Ex.P/4, was working
with one Rajendra Thakur resident of Depalpur, Indore. On 14.12.2012, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26042
2 CRA-1486-2016
want to the mobile shop of appellant no.3 Gokul for changing the body of his
mobile. Gokul asked for Rs.300/-. Radheshyam replied that he has already
paid Rs.300/- and due to this, a dispute occurred. Appellant no.1
Radheshyam S/o Ghanshyam and appellant no.2 Rajesh also came on the
place of incident, they all beaten the complainant Radheshyam and uttered a
word "Chamatta" and extended threat to life.
3. A written compliant Ex.P/2 was submitted in the police Station
Depalpur, Indore and a crime No.421/2012 was registered. Completing the
investigation, a final report was submitted.
4. Charges under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 as well
as under Section 294, 323 and 506-II of IPC were framed. The appellants
abjured guilt and claimed for trial.
5. The prosecution examined as many as six witnessed including the
victim Radheshyam PW-1, Mohan PW-2, Dr. Himanshu Jaiswal PW-3,
Pawan Jain, Additional Collector PW-4, Triveni Prasad Mishara (Sub
Inspector) PW-5, Harish Motwani (Dy. Superintendent of Police) PW-6. In
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C all the facts and circumstances
were either denied or ignorance was expressed.
6. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the
appellants from the charges under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC and
convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above in para no.1.
7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal been
preferred before this Court.
8. During pendency of the appeal, the victim and the appellants
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26042
3 CRA-1486-2016
entered into a compromise and the compromise was verified by the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 04.09.2025. On the basis of compromise, the
appellants are acquitted from the charged under Section 323 of IPC.
9. Now, the conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 is being considered.
10. The learned trial Court has recorded finding in para no.45 of the
impugned judgment that the appellants not being a member of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe uttered the word "Chamatta" in public place to
insult the victim/Radheshyam PW-1 intentionally.
11. This finding is being examined and for this purpose, the testimony
of Radheshyam PW-1 is being re-examined. Para No.1 of statement of
Radheshyam PW-1 is relevant for this purpose. He has stated that due to the
dispute of payment of Rs.300/- for changing the body of the mobile, only
appellant no.3 Gokul uttered filthy words of mother and sister and said
"Chammatta". Calling by caste name without intention to insult or humiliate,
does not attracts the provisions of Section 3 (1)(10) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989 as held by this Court in the case of Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. 1992
Cri.L.J. 3054, and Ratanalal vs. State of M.P.1994(1) MPWN 154.
12. In this case, the incident took place by chance and only on the
ground of dispute of payment for changing the body of mobile, no intention
to insult or humiliation can be inferred and the trial Court has committed
error in recording the finding that there was intention to insult or humiliate
when only appellant no.3 Gokul called Radheshyam PW-1 by caste name
"chamatta". Accordingly, this finding recorded by learned trial Court in para
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26042
4 CRA-1486-2016
no.45 of the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same is set aside.
Consequently, the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Section
3(1)(10) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
13. The bail bonds of the appellants stands discharged and the amount
of fine, if any deposited, shall be returned to them.
14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the disposed off.
15. Copy of the judgment be forwarded to the trial court along with
record for compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
