MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal of the year 1998 and by this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., appellants Mohanlal and Bherulal have challenged the judgment dated 9/1/1998 passed by the Special Judge, Khachrod in Special Case No.26/1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence u/S 323/34 of the IPC and for offence u/s 3(1) (vi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo three months and one year s rigorous imprisonment respectively and fine of Rs.1,000/-each. In case of default of payment of fine, they were to undergo additional three months R.I. each.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the victim Ranchhod belongs to SC & ST; whereas the accused persons are of the general category. Near about 2 years prior to the date of incident the victim Ranchhod was working as a labourer under the accused persons. The accused persons assaulted Ranchhod and being afraid he fled away from the village and returned after four monthson the day of Rakhi festival i.e. on 10/8/1995. In the midnight the accused persons reached the residence of Ranchhod on a motorcycle, called him out and assaulted him and also abused in the name of caste. They also assaulted his mother Sampatbai and forcibly took away Ranchhod on the motorcycle for working in their field and kept under observation through out the night. The matter was reported at the police station. After completion of investigation, the accused were arrested, duly charged and committed to their trial. Accused/appellants abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offence as herein above indicated. Being aggrieved, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for accused appellants has urged that the conviction is contrary to the provisions of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which have not been considered by the trial Court. Counsel further submitted that the appellants have already undergone 7 days of the custodial sentence. Moreover, Counsel stated that to constitute an offence it is necessary that whoever is not a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults orintimidates with intent to humiliate another person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view; however, merely calling a person by caste to insult without mens-rea or intention to insult and humiliate cannot constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(vi) of the SC & ST Act. Counsel relied on Bharatsingh and another vs. State of M.P., 2006 CrLJ 4429 and Counsel prayed that in the instant case the ratio applied in full force and also prayed that the conviction under the said offence be set aside. In the alternate, Counsel submitted that even if this Court was satisfied regarding the conviction, it was now more than 14 years, the custodial sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.