Kamleshwar Nath - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents Dina and others of offences, under section 500 IPC and 4 (3) of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Appellant Pokhai is Raidas (Chamar( by caste and is the Chaudhary of the community. The respondents also belong to the same community. The complainant-appellant used to carry on business in leather.
(2.) ON 28-6-78 the appellant filed a complaint naming all the respondents with the allegation that the latter were unlawfully outcasting him from the community and had defamed him. It was stated that for quite some time the respondents were asking him to desist from carrying on his business of leather to which he was not agreeable, with the result that the respondents were threatening to ex-communicate him and not to participate or take meals at such ceremonial functions like marriage where he, the complainant, appeared, participated and took meals. In particular on 1-6-78 when the appellant went to attend the dinner of the marriage of the son of Nanda Chamar in village Malaha on a proper invitation, the accused-respondents declared that if the former participated in the function, they would not take meals. In consequence the plaintiff left the place and did :not participate in the function. The complainant then called a village Panchayat on 25-6-78 which took a decision that the complainant-appellant would be free to carry on his trade in leather and he would not be ex-communicated by any one. Inspite of this decision the respondents continued to denigrate him which has caused the great set back of his reputation, dignity and prestige. He, therefore, prayed for the prosecution of the respondents. The complainant-appellant examined himself as PW 1, Ram Jiawan (PW 2) Shri Ram (PW 3) and Kalloo (PW 4) to prove the facts of the case. The respondents examined DW 1 Badlu. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that since the impugned acts of the accused were not the result of the caste-discrimination but only on account of the appellant's trade activities, no case under section 4(3) of the Act was made out. The Magistrate found that the accused-respondents forbade the complainant-appellant to carry on trade in leather and on his failure to comply they had ex-communicated the appellant (Hukka Pani Band Kar Diya) and for the same reason the appellant had to come away from the house of Nanda where he had gone for meals. On this basis it was held that the ex-communication of the appellant by the accused, on account of trade activity, did not constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the record with the aid of the learned counsel for the appellant who does not press for the prosecution of the respondents for the offence under Section 4 (3) of the Act. His contention is that on the own findings of the trial court, as also according to the evidence on the record, it was fully established that the respondents were openly excommunicating the appellant so much so that he had suffered in his reputation, respect and esteem which he had earned as a respectable member and. a Chaudhary of the community. It is urged that the appellant's reputation has been lowered in the estimation of others. There seems to be substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The complaint case as stated above briefly has not only been reiterated by Pokhai (PW 1) on oath but it has also been supported by the statements of Ram Jiwan (PW 2), PW 3 Shri Ram and PW 4 Kalloo. PW 2 Ram Jiawan stated that although the Panchayat called by the complainant had taken a decision that the complainant-appellant could carry on the business in leather, the accused-respondents nevertheless' told the members of the community that they would not take meals if the complainant was called on and participated in any social function. PW 3 Shri Ram stated that the accused did not accept the decision of the panchayat and went on to say that even if the members of the Biradari called the complainant then that person would also be ex-communicated (Hukka Pani Band Kar Diya Jayega). PW 4 Kalloo stated that at the marriage function of Nanda's son, the complianant and all the accused were present ; that the accused stated that if the complainant took meals at the function, then they would not take meals, in consequence of which the complainant did not take meals at Nanda's place.;