SC/ST Atrocity Charge Not Made Out for Lack of Caste-Intent; Conviction Under Section 325 IPC Upheld with Sentence Reduced

A single-judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, constituted by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, heard Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2008 in which two appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 325/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balaghat.

The Court allowed the appeal partly. It held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with the requisite intention to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste, and therefore the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act was not made out; the Court acquitted the appellants of that special-act charge. The Court, however, maintained the conviction under Section 325/34 IPC for causing grievous hurt, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants and keeping the fine intact. The Court relied on earlier decisions of this High Court and observed that mere abusive words or epithets, without proof of caste-based intent, did not attract the special Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, and the evidence on record in the considered opinion of this Court that the intention of accused persons while committing said crime was not proved that they had the intention to humiliate the complaint on the basis of caste hence, offence u/S 3(1) (X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out against accused persons and they are entitled to get benefit of doubt." The judgment also reiterated earlier authority that "utterance of word 'chamar' without any intention shall not make any offence u/S 3(1) (X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989."

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 18 March 2008 at about noon, when the complainant Khanaiyalal alleged that the accused persons abused and physically assaulted him. An FIR was lodged at P.S. Lamta, Balaghat, registered as Crime No. 13/2008 under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 IPC; a charge-sheet followed and the trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing them to one year RI and six months RI respectively, with fines.

On appeal, counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution had not proved the mens rea required under the SC/ST Act — namely, intention to insult on the basis of caste — and pointed to inconsistencies in medical evidence and to statements suggesting the quarrel arose from a prior altercation and local disputes over construction work. The State supported the convictions and left the matter of sentence to the Court.

The High Court examined medical and ocular evidence. Though medical witnesses differed in their descriptions of injuries, the Court held that the ocular testimony of the complainant and other witnesses inspired confidence and supported conviction under Section 325 IPC. On the special-act count, the Court applied its earlier decisions in Laxman & Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of M.P., which held that mere use of caste epithets or the utterance of words like "chamar" without intention to humiliate in public did not fulfill the ingredient of Section 3(1)(X). Following that precedent and the evidence on record, the Court acquitted the appellants of the offence under the SC/ST Act and set aside the conviction and sentence in that count; it directed that any fine deposited in respect of that conviction be returned. The Court maintained the conviction under Section 325/34 IPC but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants, noting they were first offenders who had suffered custody and mental agony since 2008. The appellants’ personal and bail bonds were ordered to be discharged and the trial court record was remitted with a copy of the High Court judgment.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2008 Case Title: Radhayshyam Kalar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Station House Officer, P.S. (Ajjaks) Lamta Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Shobhitaditya, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Manish Mukhraiya, Panel Lawyer