1 2025:CGHC:8061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 785 of 2006 1 - Manmohan Singh, Aged about 60 years, S/o. Vijay Singh Rajput, R/o. Village Parsada, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 2 – Mahendra Singh, S/o. Mithailal Banafar, aged about 38 years, R/o. Chirmiri, New Mines Quarter No. 20/1, P.S. Bada Bazar, District Korba (C.G.) At present R/o. Village Parsada, P.S. Pali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. S.T. Cell (A.Ja.K. Prakosht), District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Judgement on Board 14/02/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.14 17:51:49 +0530 2 impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.09.2006, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Korba, District Korba (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 02 of 2006, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 294 of IPC R.I. for 03 months with fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 15 days. U/s. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 01 month. Both the sentences are directed to be run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.09.2005, the complainant Raghupal Singh/PW-2 made a written complaint (exhibit P-3) to AJAK police, Korba with the allegation that on 31.08.2005, at about 5:00 PM, when he was purchasing vegetables in the market, the appellant Manmohan Singh abused him in the name of his caste. On the next day, on 01.09.2005, when he was returning to his house from his field, the appellant No.2 Mahendra Singh, who is the son-in-law of Manmohan Singh, threatened him that he abused his father-in-law and he will see him as he also member of Human Rights Commission. The witness Bhanwar Singh, Kanwal Das and Ashok Shyam were also present there and other persons have also seen the incident. After preliminary enquiry, the police have registered the FIR (exhibit P-5) against the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, 341, 506 3 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The social status certificate (exhibit P-1) and domicile certificate (exhibit P-2) of the complainant have been seized by the police. Spot map (exhibit P-4) was prepared by the police. The appellants were arrested on 03.10.2005 and 04.10.2005 respectively. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora for the offence under Section 341, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 3. The case was committed to the Court of learned trial Court for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant Manmohan Singh for the offence under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, whereas the charge against the appellant Mahendra Singh has been framed for the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed the trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The appellant Manmohan Singh has submitted that his son-in-law Mahendra Singh had made a complaint to the Sarpanch Lakheshwar Singh Jagat, due to which he has falsely implicated him in the offence 4 through the complainant Raghupal Singh. It is the Raghupal Singh, who abused him and he has not abused Raghupal Singh. 5. The appellant Mahendra Singh has also stated that he made a complaint to the Sarpanch of the village and he supported the fishermen, for which he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. On 31.08.2005, he was at SDOP office, Katghora and could reach to his house at 11:00 PM in the night. On 01.09.2005, at about 6:00 AM, he came to Ratanpur from Parsada, from where came to Pali police station, where the recording of statements of the fishermen were going on. Since he supported the fishermen Horil Singh, he has been falsely implicated in the offence. In support of his defence DW- 1/Kirti Kumar Jaiswal and DW-2/Balaram Armo, two defence witnesses have been examined by his side. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the offence in question. The complaint has been lodged on 06.09.2005, in which the alleged incident is said to have been occurred on 31.08.2005 and thus, there is considerable delay in 5 lodging the report, which has not been explained. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses. The basic ingredients of the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is missing, as the alleged act of the appellants is not sufficient to constitute the offence of intentionally insults or humiliate the person belonging to the SC/ST caste. The material witnesses, who were present in the market have not been examined and the witnesses, who have been examined are the interested witnesses. He would also submit that the complainant has admitted in his evidence that, one Horil Singh is having contract of fishing rights for 10 years, but Lakheshwar (Sarpanch) has objected, for which there was a dispute between them. He would further submit that there is no sufficient allegation for the offence under Section 294 of IPC also and the appellants cannot be convicted on the unproved allegation in such the contradictory statements made by the witnesses and they are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and sufficient to hold guilty of the appellants in the offence. He would further submit that the complainant Raghupal/PW-2 has duly supported the prosecution case and the basic ingredients of the offence of SC/ST Act is there in his evidence, which is supported by the evidence of other witnesses PW-3/Kanwal Das, PW-4/Bhanwar Singh, PW-5/Sudheram and PW-6/Lakheshwar 6 Singh Jagat. The alleged incident is occurred in the place within the public view and the complainant was being intentionally insulted by the accused persons, for which the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellants, which are justified and needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. PW-2, Raghupal Singh (complainant) has stated in his evidence that on 31.08.2005, at the time when he was purchasing vegetables from the market, the appellant Manmohan made a sarcastic commenting upon him using the word “Gond Gawar”. When he objected, the appellant Manmohan again threatened him that his son-in-law is the President of Human Rights Commission. He felt annoyed and went back to his house. He informed about the incident to Kotwar Ishwar Das. On the next day, when he along with Bhanwar Singh was returning from the field and going to the dam to take bath, when they reached near the house of Mahendra Singh, he exhorted them by abusing with filthy language and he too has abused in the name of his caste. With the intervention of the persons of the vicinity, the quarrel was pacified. He informed the incident to his son Jaipal Singh by telephone, who came to his house after about 08 days and then he lodged the report. In cross-examination, he admitted that the distance between his house and Pali police station is about 05 miles. He admitted that, at the time when the incident of vegetable market was 7 occurred, the appellant Mahendra Singh was not there at that time and at the time, when the appellant Mahendra Singh abused him, the appellant Manmohan Singh was not there at that time. In further cross- examination he stated that, he did not know that, who had obtained the fishing contract in the village. He admitted that Lakheshwar Singh is the Sarpanch of the villager and there were various works were going on in the village under the government schemes. The written complaint (exhibit P-3) was got typed by his son Jaipal, who is in service at Rajasthan. After about 8-10 days of the incident his son Jaipal came there and thereafter, they lodged the report. He could not remember, as to where the said written complaint was typed. In further cross-examination he admitted that, Horil Singh is claiming that he has got the fishing rights for 10 years, whereas Lakheshwar is saying that his period of fishing rights is over. He also admitted that both the appellants are in support of Horil Singh. He further admitted that, before coming to his son Jaipal, he has not lodged the report to the police, he voluntarily stated that, he disclosed the incident to Sarpanch and Kotwar of the village. 11. PW-4, Bhanwar Singh with whom the complainant Raghupal was going to take bath at the time of alleged incident has stated in his evidence that, when they reached near the house of appellant Mahendra Singh, he started abusing them. The witness Kanwal Das was also come there and he intervened in the quarrel, but the accused Mahendra Singh abused Kanwal Das also and then they left the place. He did not disclose the incident to anyone and when they disclosed it 8 to Kotwar and Sarpanch, they advised them to lodge the report. After 02 days, they had gone to lodge report to Pali police station, but when the police came to village, they did not know. In cross-examination, he deviated from his police statement (exhibit D-1) and denied certain parts of police statement to make before the police. He admitted that, he, Raghupal Singh and Lakheshwar Singh are belonging to the same caste. He did not know about the incident of previous day. He too has admitted that Horil Singh was having contract of fishing rights and Sarpanch Lakheshwar objected since 02 years by saying that the period of fishing rights is over. 12. PW-3, Kanwal Das has stated in his evidence that, on the date of incident, the complainant Raghupal Singh and Bhanwar Singh were coming from the field, he was sitting in front of his house. The appellant Mahendra Singh after seeing the Raghupal and Bhanwar Singh on the road, he asked to stop them and the appellant Mahendra Singh abused in the name of their caste and threatened the complainant. He intervened in the quarrel and then the appellant Mahendra Singh abused him also. In cross-examination, he admitted that the houses of both the accused persons are in different location. The house of the complainant Raghupal Singh is situated in other side of the village having short route from other side, but the route towards the house of the appellant Mahendra Singh is longer. He too has admitted that complainant Raghupal Singh, Sarpanch Lakheshwar Singh and Bhanwar Singh are belonging to the same caste. He shown 9 his ignorance about any dispute with respect to fishing rights in the village. 13. PW-5, Sudheram is another witness to the alleged incident. He stated in his evidence that on the market day of the village, when he was purchasing vegetables, the appellant Manmohan Singh abused the complainant Raghupal in the name of his caste as “Gond Gawar” and “Adivasi” and he did not know anything. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is residing in Bilaspur since last 10 years and occasionally came to his village at Parsada. He too has admitted that, Horil Singh had obtained the fishing rights contract in the village and the members of his family are trying to get the fishing rights in their favour. 14. PW-6, Lakheshwar Singh Jagat, who was the Sarpanch of the village, has stated in his evidence that on 31.08.2005, at about 6:00 PM, the complainant Raghupal Singh came to him and informed about the incident. He tried to convince him that he will talk with Manmohan. When he talked with Manmohan, he did not convince and then he came back to his house. On the next day, at about 2:30-3:00 PM, the complainant Raghupal Singh and Kanwal Das came to his house and again made a complaint that Mahendra Singh abused him and also alleged about the incident of previous day. He advised them to lodge report to the police. On 02.09.2005, they had gone to Pali police station, but they were advised to go to AJAK police station and then they returned back. On the next day, the complainant Raghupal Singh himself had gone to Pali police station and lodged the report. In cross- 10 examination, he admitted that houses of both the appellants are in different directions in the village. The appellant Mahendra Singh is claiming to be the General Secretary of All India Human Rights Commission. He admitted that, he, Raghupal Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Ashok Singh are belonging to the same caste. He also admitted the dispute with respect to the fishing rights in favour of Horil Singh, but he shown his ignorance that, the appellant Mahendra Singh is supporting Horil Singh. He also shown his ignorance that the irregularities with respect to the various works under the government schemes, the complaint was made to the appellant Mahendra Singh, which was forwarded by him to the Collector, I.G. Police and other higher authorities, for which he is having grudge against Mahendra Singh. Nothing substantive has come in his evidence, as he is not the witness of the incident, but he is the person, to whom the complainant has disclosed the incident and he being the Sarpanch of the village intervened into the matter and other affairs of the village. His evidence is shaky, as he too has deviated from some part of his police statement (exhibit D-2). 15. PW-1, C.L. Markandey is the Additional Tahsildar to issue the social status certificate (exhibit P-1) and domicile certificate (exhibit P-2) to the complainant Raghupal. In cross-examination, he admitted that the entries in the certificate have not been made by him. He issued the temporary social status certificate to the complainant, which was issued for 06 months. He did not know, as to since when the 11 complainant Raghupal Singh is residing at village Parsada and whether he is having any property there or not. 16. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it reveals that on 31.08.2005, the alleged incident was occurred between the appellant Manmohan Singh and the complainant Raghupal Singh and on the next day, the alleged incident is occurred between the appellant Mahendra Singh and the complainant Raghupal Singh. The report of the alleged incident dated 31.08.2005 and 01.09.2005 is lodged on 06.09.2005 and there is no explanation for lodging the delayed report, except the explanation that the complainant called his son, who was in service at Rajasthan. When the Sarpanch Lakheshwar/PW-6 has stated that on the next day of the incident, they had gone to police station and on the second next day, the complainant lodged the report to the police, makes the report doubtful and explanation given by the complainant. Further, the words allegedly used by the appellants, are also not the corroborative. Further, there is no reason for abusing the complainant in the vegetable market by the appellant Manmohan Singh. It further came on record that, there was a dispute between Sarpanch Lakheshwar Singh and Horil with respect to the fishing rights. The incident was initially informed to Sarpanch Lakheshwar Singh, who advised them to lodge report and accompanied to police station. It has also come on record that, the appellant Mahendra Singh has forwarded the complaint against the irregularities of the works, which was going on in the village under the government schemes to the higher authorities and the relations between them were not cordial. 12 Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the scenario created by the evidence of the witnesses, it reveals that there are conflicting interest of the complainant as well as the appellants and the witnesses for one or other reason. There may be some incident in the village, but the evidence led by the prosecution does not prove the alleged offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as there are discrepancies in the words used and intention behind it. 17. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act provides that:- “3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;” 18. The provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act provides that, a person can be punished under this section, when he commits such offence on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST community. The alleged act has to be committed intentionally to humiliate the member of SC/ST community in a place within the public view, but in the present case, there are certain discrepancies in using the words of the caste of the complainant. 13 19. Further, in the matter of “Jasrath Singh and another v. State of M.P.” 2005 SCC OnLine MP 329, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held in Para 10 to 12 that:- “10. To constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act it is necessary that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The words "intentional", "insult" and "humiliation" have been used in this Section but they have not been defined in the Act. As per Webster Dictionary, the word "intent" means having the mind bent on an object, "intentional" means done purposely. The term "intentional" has been used in relation to act done by or with intention, which means to do wrong with intent. As per Law Lexicon, a person who, by his declaration, act or omission, had caused another to belief a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, must be held to have done so "intentionally" within the meaning of the Statute. As per Webster, "to insult" is to treat with abuse, insolence, or contempt; to commit an indignity upon, as to call the main liar. A gross indignity offered to another whether by act or by word is known as "insult". An insult is an indolent attack. It is more easy to imagine an affront where none was intended than an insult. As per Webster, in common parlance the word "humiliation" means to lower the dignity of, painfully humbling, the state of being humble and free 14 from pride. As per Oxford dictionary "humiliate" means to cause a person to feel disgrace, humble condition or attitude of mind. In the background of the definition of the aforesaid words, to prove the offence under the aforesaid section, it is necessary that there must be an element of intentionally committing the insult or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and for that the evidence of the witness should be consistent and reliable. When there is caste-based rivalry between the parties and hatred against the members of appellant community, the evidence has to he scrutinised carefully and there should be very cogent and independent evidence of causing insult intentionally. So far as this case is concerned, there is no consistent evidence on record regarding intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. Raghuvir Singh Chowdhary (P.W. 5), who is a member of Janpad and was present in the meeting appears to be a responsible person has deposed that they have said "Yaha Chamar Panchayat Ho Rahi He" and these words are neither offending nor it can be said that they were told with the intention of insult or they come within the purview of intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. Merely calling a person from the caste name without the proof of any intention of intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating will also not constitute the offence referred under the section. Moreso, none of 15 the witnesses have deposed that why the abuses were given, whether there was any wordy quarrel between them and it has also not been explained that how the dispute arose between the parties and who initiated it. 11. Thus, after appreciating the evidence on record it is clear that no case of commission of any crime is made out against the appellants. There is no consistent evidence against them about the intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste. The evidence of Lalliram (P.W. 1) is not corroborated by other witnesses and the evidence of other witnesses is rather damaging to the prosecution case, as the witnesses have admitted that they use to hate the members of appellant community and their relations with the members of Baghel community are not cordial. In fact, all the prosecution witnesses are members of one community, they are interested witnesses in one community and they have admitted caste based enmity. Thus, in the light of such an evidence and under the facts and circumstances of the case the possibility of falsely implicating the appellants also can not be ruled out on the basis of caste hatred and rivalry. Prosecution has not examined any independent witness of the village to prove the allegation. Apart from the evidence of caste hatred evidence of enmity between the parties over Panchayat election is also available on record. 16 12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find that any offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the appellants. The Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of caste based hatred and rivalry and also enmity over Panchayat election between the parties.” 20. From all the considerations, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution could not establish the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the allegation leveled by the complainant and the witnesses are not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the offences. 22. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for the further period of 06 months, as provided under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved