SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The appellant Pappu Kanwar has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') being aggrieved of the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 211/2017 whereby, charges were framed by the Trial Court against the appellant for the offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted herein below: The respondent No. 2 Munna Ram lodged a written report with the SHO, Police Station Bhojasar on 8.10.2016 alleging inter alia that Smt. Pappu Devi had been instigated to commit suicide by the accused Shiv Singh Fauji and his wife. He alleged that these persons, treated the victim with physical and mental cruelty; abused her by using objectionable words against her. She was maligned on account of her caste. Pappu Devi could not tolerate this grave injustice and insult and, came back to her house from the tube-well of Shiv Singh at about 6 O' Clock in the evening and committed suicide by consuming poison. None other family member was present in the house at that time. Pappu Devi's son-in-law Omprakash had been engaged as a labourer on the tube-well of Shiv Singh. Omprakash as well as his wife used to work there. However, Shiv Singh and his wife harassed them extremely; hurled insinuations of theft and threatened to kill them; and abused them on the ground of their caste on which, Omprakash gave up the contract and went back to his house. When Pappu Devi found that her son-in-law had been abused and had been made to go away from the tube-well then, she convened a community meeting, Shiv Singh's wife came to her house and threatened that either they should continue to work at her tube-well or pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of damages. Not only this, she threatened that she would kill the family members who were of a lower caste. Being grave perturbed by this sequence of events, Pappu Devi consumed poison and ended her life. The incident took place on 7.10.2016. The report came to be lodged on 8.10.2016 whereupon, an FIR No. 121/2016 was registered at the Police Station Bhojasar for the offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the I.O. got the dead body of Pappu Devi subjected to postmortem. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Mobile call details were procured. A C.D. pertaining to the conversation held between Raju Ram and Shiv Singh was also procured. The I.O. came to a conclusion that Omprakash, the son-in-law of Pappu Devi, had taken the tube-well/ agricultural field of Shiv Singh for cultivation on sharing basis. Shiv Singh had paid some amount to Omprakash. By chance, the motor installed at the tube-well malfunctioned and could be repaired after some delay. In the meantime, some crops standing on the field of Shiv Singh were damaged. Shiv Singh and Pappu Kanwar became annoyed and hot talks took place between them and Omprakash who, left the tube-well on 1.10.2016 and went back to his house. On this, Shiv Singh and Pappu Kanwar became angry and started threatening the complainant and his wife Pappu Devi on whose assurance, the tube-well had been given for cultivation to Omprakash. They insinuated that they had spent a huge sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on the tube-well but because of the negligence of Omprakash, whole of the standing crops had been destroyed and that the complainant and his wife would have to cover the damages. This altercation took place on 3.10.2016 from 8 O' Clock to 12 O' Clock in the night. Pappu Devi then told Pappu Kanwar that she would take care of the crops and would ensure that no loss was caused. She then collected her belongings; took her four month's old daughter with her and went to the tube-well of Shiv Singh and started working there. Munna Ram went to the tube-well and scolded his wife (the deceased) as to why, she had started working at the tube-well of the accused. Pappu Devi then expressed her helplessness saying that it was their responsibility to ensure that the crops were not damaged. Pappu Kanwar (accused) then threatened that the responsibility to keep the crops in a healthy condition was of the complainant and his wife or they should bear damages. She forced Pappu Devi to stay back at the tube-well. Munna Ram became angry and went back to his home. Pappu Devi called her nephew Bulla Ram to work with her at the agricultural field of the accused. She conveyed to some people on phone that she was working on the field of Pappu Kanwar under pressure. The I.O. being the Circle Officer, Police Station Bhojasar concluded that Pappu Kanwar must have insulted Pappu Devi on the ground of damage caused to the crops and as a result thereof, Pappu Devi became perturbed and ended her life by consuming poison. The conclusions drawn by the Circle Officer in this regard, as reflected from the charge-sheet, are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:-- ...[Varnacular Text Omitted]... With these conclusions, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offences under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Trial Court, proceeded to frame charge against the appellant in the same terms by the order dated 14.12.2017 which is assailed in this appeal.
(3.) Shri Sinwaria, learned Counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that from the highest allegations as set out in the FIR, no prima facie case under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act or Section 306 of the I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. The prosecution allegations are absolutely vague and flimsy. The field of the accused had been taken by the deceased's family on sharing basis and a dispute arising thereupon, has been given the colour of an offences. He urged that Munna Ram, the first informant, did not allege in his statement that the accused hurled any caste based abuses towards him or towards his wife Pappu Devi in his presence. He further submitted that Omprakash has made vague allegations in his statement regarding Pappu Kanwar having lost her temper because of the damage caused to the crops because she felt that Omprakash had acted negligently and was responsible for the loss. He urged that the Trial Court has not framed charge against the appellant for any alleged incident which might have taken place between her and Omprakash. On the other hand, so far as the incident with Pappu Devi is concerned, other than conjectural inferences sought to be drawn from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, there is no direct or substantive evidence to satisfy that the accused ever harassed or humiliated the deceased on account of her caste or that she instigated her to commit suicide. He urged that as a matter of fact, the deceased appears to have been caught in a tug of war between her conscience to make good the losses caused to the appellant by the negligent acts of her son-in-law Omprakash and of working in the field in his place against the wishes of her husband Munna Ram. He urged that being perturbed by this conflict, the deceased lost her mental equilibrium; went back to her house and there, she consumed poison thereby ending her life. He urged that admittedly, neither the appellant nor any of the members of the family of the deceased were present in the house when she consumed poison. None of the prosecution witnesses claims to have witnessed or observed the talks which took between the appellant and the deceased on 7.10.2016 before she committed suicide and thus, there is nothing on the record of the case to show that the appellant is even remotely or in any manner responsible for the offences alleged. He thus urged that the Trial Court was absolutely unjustified in framing charge against the appellant for the above offences. In support of his contentions, Shri Sinwaria placed reliance on the following Supreme Court judgments: (i) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998, and (ii) S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., reported in (2011)2 SCC (Cri) 465, and implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned order and discharge the appellant from the charges. ;