Bombay High Court
Pradip S/O Vishwanath Ghonge And Others vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Sindkhed Raja … on 13 December, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:14229 1 39appeal675.+3.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2023 APPELLANTS: 1. Vaijnath s/o Laxman Ghonge, Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Service. 2. Karbhari s/o Yadavrao Ghonge, Aged about 61 Years, Occupation: Forest Labour. Both the appellants are r/o Bamkhed, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. ...V E R S U S... RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Sindkhed Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana. 2. Sau. Seema Rajendra Jadhav, Aged about 28 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Bamkhed, Post Aland, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2023 APPELLANTS: 1. Vilas s/o Samadhan Ghonge, aged about 37 years, Occupation: Service - Teacher. rkn 2 39appeal675.+3.odt 2. Mohan s/o Appa Ghonge, aged about 48 years, Occupation: Clerk Both the appellants are R/o Bamkhed, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana.. ...V E R S U S... RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Sindkhed Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana. 2. Sau. Seema Rajendra Jadhav, Aged about 28 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Bamkhed, Post Aland, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 667 OF 2023 APPELLANTS: 1. Umesh s/o Anantha Ghonge, aged about 17 years, Occupation: Student. 2. Pravin s/o Raghunath Ghonge, aged about 31 years, Occupation: Forest Student. Both the appellants are R/o Bamkhed, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana.. ...V E R S U S... RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, rkn 3 39appeal675.+3.odt Police Station Sindkhed Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana. 2. Sau. Seema Rajendra Jadhav, Aged about 28 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Bamkhed, Post Aland, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2023 APPELLANTS: 1. Pradip s/o Vishwanath Ghonge, aged about 38 years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 2. Bharat s/o Ganpat Ghonge, Aged about 50 years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 3. Gopal s/o Bharat Ghonge, Aged about 20 years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 4. Ganesh s/o Kisan Ghonge, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 5. Vivek s/o Samadhan Ghonge, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 6. Santosh s/o Manikrao Ghonge, Aged about 61 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist. rkn 4 39appeal675.+3.odt 7. Vijay s/o Ramchandra Ghonge, Aged about 58 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist. 8. Bhagwat s/o Bharat Ghonge, Aged about 23 Years, Occupation: Agriculturist. All the appellants are R/o Bamkhed, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. ...V E R S U S... RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Sindkhed Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, District Buldhana. 2. Sau. Seema Rajendra Jadhav, Aged about 28 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Bamkhed, Post Aland, Tah. Deulgaonraja and District Buldhana. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Amol Jaltare counsel with Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for appellants. Ms. H.N.Prabhu, APP for respondent/State. Mr. M .P. Kariya, counsel for respondent No. 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 13/12/2024 1. Heard. 2. Admit. rkn 5 39appeal675.+3.odt
3. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
4. By preferring these appeals under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants therein have challenged the
order passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,
Buldhana, rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. The appellants are apprehending the arrest at the
hands of police in connection with Crime No. 194/2023 registered
with Police Station Sindkhed Raja for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 452, 354, 354-B, 395, 324, 323, 427 and
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The report is lodged by Seema Rajendra
Jadhav on an allegation that on 21/08/2023 around 8.00 p.m, the
accused Nos.1 to 5 came to her grocery shop adjacent to her
house and demanded the Gutkha packets, for which she denied.
On that count, they not only abused her but also caused the
damage to her grocery shop with a bamboo stick. The accused
rkn
6 39appeal675.+3.odt
no. 1 lifted the shutter of her shop by his hand and again made a
demand of contraband Gutkha. On her denial, he got annoyed
and abused her in a filthy language and also snatched
Rs. 11,000/- from the cash box of the shop and also thrown the
grocery articles from the shop. It is further alleged that subsequent
to the act of the accused No. 1, the other accused also entered into
her shop by holding sticks in their hands and caused the damage
to her shop. The first incident happened on 21/08/2023,
thereafter all the villagers decided to settle the dispute, and
therefore, she has not lodged the report. However, subsequent to
the said incident on 01/09/2023 again, when her daughter was
about to proceed in a school in the vehicle of accused No. 16. The
accused No. 16 denied her the right to take in the vehicle by
saying that they are boycotting the community and also used the
words against her daughter, which insulted her and humiliated
her. They have also caused damage to the photo-frame of Dr. Baba
Saheb Ambedkar. On the basis of the said report, police have
registered the crime against the present appellants and other
co-accused. After registration of the crime, the appellants Vilas
Samadhan Ghonge and Mohan Appa Ghonge filed an application
for grant of anticipatory bail bearing no. 274/2023 before the
rkn
7 39appeal675.+3.odt
Special Judge. The anticipatory bail was rejected, and therefore,
they have preferred the appeal No. 666/2023. The appellants,
Umesh Anantha Ghonge and Pravin Raghunath Ghonge, also filed
an application before the Special Judge bearing No. 275/2023,
the same was rejected, and hence, they have filed appeal No.
667/2023. The appellants, namely Vaijnath Laxman Ghonge and
Karbhari Yadavrao Ghonge, also filed an application bearing No.
273/2023, the same was rejected, and hence they filed appeal No.
675/2023. The accused, Pradip Vishwanath Ghonge, Bharat
Ganpat Ghonge, Gopal Bharat Ghonge, Ganesh Kisan Ghonge,
Vivek Samadhan Ghonge, Santosh Manikrao Ghonge, Vijay
Ramchandra Ghonge, and Bhagwat Bharat Ghonge, have also
filed an application for grant of bail bearing No.272/2023, the
same was also rejected, and therefore, they preferred an appeal
bearing No. 676/2023.
6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Jaltare for all the
appellants, who submitted that as far as the allegations regarding
the abuses on the caste are concerned, which are made against
accused No. 1 Deepak Vijay Ghonge, who is not an appellant in
the present case. The allegation as to the assault is made against
rkn
8 39appeal675.+3.odt
Uddhav Madan Ghonge, who is also not the appellant, and the
allegation that the daughter of the informant was not taken in the
vehicle is made against the accused No. 16, who is also not the
appellant in the present case. He submitted that as far as the
appellants who have preferred these appeals are concerned,
general allegations are made, and that allegation is also not to the
extent of any abuses by them, by making any specific statements.
The omnibus statement is made against them, as far as the assault
is concerned or the abuses are concerned. He submitted that,
considering the recitals of the FIR, no prima facie case is made out
against the present appellants, and therefore, the bar under
Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act is not attracted.
7. He also invited my attention towards the fact that,
initially, there was a dispute between them on 21/08/2023,
however, the said dispute was settled by the villagers, and
therefore, as per the informant, no FIR was lodged. As far as the
second incident dated 01/09/2023 is concerned, wherein the
allegation is against only the accused No. 16, as far as the other
accused are concerned, they are not concerned with the same. The
allegation regarding the subsequent event that when she had been
rkn
9 39appeal675.+3.odt
to the flour mill, at that time, the accused asked her not to bring
the grains to his flour mill, as they have boycotted the entire
community, is also against the accused No. 15, who is not the
appellant.
8. He submitted that considering the general allegations
are levelled against the appellants, who are before the court, and
their custodial interrogation is not required. He submitted that
general allegations are leveled against them that they have
assaulted the informant and her brother-in-law. However, this
allegation is to be taken into consideration in the light of the
medical certificate, which is placed on record. He submitted that
even taking into consideration the entire allegation as it is, that
the informant and her brother-in-law are assaulted by all the
appellants by using a stick in their hand, but the medical
certificate shows that only two injuries are sustained by them,
which are also simple in nature, and that the allegation is also
omnibus in nature. Thus, considering the same, no offence is
attracted, as far as the provisions of the Atrocities Act are
concerned.
9. He further submitted that as far as the allegation
rkn
10 39appeal675.+3.odt
regarding the boycott on the community of the informant is
concerned, which is denied by the other community members by
filing an application before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer on
12/10/2022, wherein it is stated that Rajendra Baburao Jadhav
and Baban Asaram Navghire have threatened them, if they have
not supported them in a false case, they have to face dire
consequences, and therefore, they have apprehension regarding
any damage either to their property or their person. The said
application is signed by various persons. He submitted that, in the
light of the above application, it is crystal clear that only to
pressurize the present appellants, this false FIR is lodged,
moreover, this FIR is lodged to give a counterblast to the FIR
lodged by Kusum Vijay Ghonge.
10. He submitted that considering the entire scenario in
which the alleged incident allegedly committed by the present
appellants is concerned, no prima-facie case is made, and
therefore, the bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act will not
be attracted. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on
the decision of Hitesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand and
Another, [(2020) 10 SCC 710].
rkn
11 39appeal675.+3.odt
11. Per contra, learned APP submitted that the FIR lodged
by the informant in the present case, i.e. Seema, is the earlier FIR,
and the FIR lodged by Kusum is the subsequent FIR. She
submitted that the present appellants and the other co-accused
have formed the unlawful assembly, and in furtherance of the
common object of the said assembly, the informant and brother-in-
law were assaulted and also caused the damage to their property,
i.e. the Shop and the Grocery articles. The present appellants have
also practiced the untouchability after so many years of
independence. She submitted that, considering the act of the
present appellants, it reveals that they have treated the informant
and her family members in such a manner as to insult and
humiliate them, and therefore, the bar under Section 18-A of the
Atrocities Act will attract. She specifically stated there is a specific
allegation against the accused No. 18 Mohan, who is the appellant
here, and in view of that, she prays for dismissal of the appeals.
12. Learned counsel Mr. M.P. Kariya for the respondent
No. 2 submitted that the appellants and the peoples of their
community have declared socially boycott against the community
that belongs to the respondent No. 2, which resulted in the
rkn
12 39appeal675.+3.odt
respondent No.2 and her family forcibly left the village and
residing in a rented premises in another village. Similarly, out of
15 families, one Kantabai Babasaheb Navghire, Ram Asaram
Navghire, and others have left the village because of following the
practice of untouchability by the appellants, who belong to the
upper caste. He submitted that respondent No. 2, through her
husband, has agitated the issue of untouchability and accordingly
informed the various authorities. Thus, considering the act of the
present appellants, which resulted into the humiliation and
intentional insult of the informant and her family members.
Therefore, the bar under Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act will
attract, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals
of the FIR and the investigation papers, it reveals that crime No.
194/2023 was registered, on the basis of the report lodged by
Seema Rajendra Jadhav alleging that she is a resident of Bamkhed
Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana. On the day of incident i.e.
on 21/08/2023, as per her allegation, the co-accused Deepak
Vijay Ghonge came to her shop and asked for the Gutkha, which
she has denied, and thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Deepak,
rkn
13 39appeal675.+3.odt
Pradip, Bharat, Gopal and Vaijnath, entered her shop and caused
damage to her shop by sticks in their hands. As far as the
allegations as regards to the abuses on the caste are concerned,
they are levelled against the accused No. 1, Deepak Vijay Ghonge,
who is not the appellant in the case. The recitals of the FIR further
show that as far as the appellants before the Court are concerned,
there is an allegation against them. They have assaulted her by
means of stick and caused damage to her shop, as well as
assaulted her and her brother-in-law. The second incident alleged
by her is on 01/09/2023, wherein the allegations are levelled
against the accused Nos. 15 and 16. As far as the accused No. 1,
Deepak and Accused Nos.15 and 16 Gajanan and Parmeshwar, are
not the appellants in the present case. The investigation papers,
which are placed on record, which shows that the statements of
the other witnesses are also recorded during the investigation,
wherein also the similar allegations are levelled against the
accused Nos. 1, 15 and 16. As far as the present appellants, who
preferred these appeals, are concerned, there is general
allegations levelled against them, except accused No. 18 i.e.
Mohan Appa Ghonge. Against him, there is specific allegations
that he has informed the informant that they have boycotted her.
rkn
14 39appeal675.+3.odt
Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
that due to the conduct of the present appellants, the informant
and other community members were constrained to leave the
village, and they are staying in another house, which is denied by
the learned counsel for the appellants, who stated that they are
still residing in the same village. He has also placed reliance on
one application which is filed by the other community members
against the Bhagwan Asaram Navghire, wherein other community
members specifically alleged that they have forced them and
supported them in a false case and also threatened them,
otherwise they have to face the dire consequences. It is imperative
to note that none of the statements of the witnesses shows that
they are forced to leave the village, and they are staying in
another village. The statements of the witnesses are also silent, as
far as the boycott by the upper caste community is concerned.
Thus, it is apparent that there are omnibus allegations levelled
against the accused Nos. 2 to 7, 9 to 14, 17, and 18. It is well
settled that, when there is an omnibus allegation and no specific
allegations are levelled against the accused persons, the bar under
Section 18 the Atrocities Act will not attract.
rkn
15 39appeal675.+3.odt
14. The constitutional validity of Section 18 challenged
before the Apex Court and while considering the same and
referring to various judgments, the Apex Court in the case of
Shajan Skaria Vs The State Of Kerala & Anr., in Criminal Appeal
No. 2622 Of 2024 (Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No. 8081 Of 2023)
Dated 23/08/2024, has observed that a plain reading of the above
provisions shows that there should be intentional insult, the
persons who belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes.
The ingredients of the offence are that;
a. Whoever not being a member of the Schedule Caste
or Scheduled Tribe;
b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such
a person; and
d. Accused must do so at any place within public view.
15. As far as the second incident dated 01/09/2023 is
concerned, admittedly it is not within the public view. The
subsequent incident, which took place at the flour mill, is also not
within the public view. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled
rkn
16 39appeal675.+3.odt
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidation to a person
will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the
socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus,
an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of
the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities,
humiliations, and harassment.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khuman Singh
vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 18 SCC 763, held in a case for
applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, the fact that
deceased belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would
not be enough to inflict the enhanced punishment. Therefore, the
offence under the Atrocities Act is not established, merely on the
fact that the informant is a member of the Scheduled Caste unless
there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
the Scheduled Tribe for the reasons that the victim belongs to the
such caste.
17. Moreover, while interpreting the expression “intent to
rkn
17 39appeal675.+3.odt
humiliate” appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the words “with intent to
humiliate” as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act,
1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person
who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every
intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST
community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It
is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation
takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability
or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the
superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes /
untouchables”, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’, etc. that it
could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged
by the Act, 1989.
18. Thus, it is clear that from the plain reading of the
provision would show that any insult against a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the ground of
“untouchability” was punishable with imprisonment for a
maximum term of six months under the Civil Rights Act. With the
passage of time, it was realised by the legislature that the Civil
rkn
18 39appeal675.+3.odt
Rights Act was not adequately sufficient to tackle caste-based
offences and the practice of “untouchability”, leading to the
enactment of the Act, 1989 introducing more stringent provisions
for combating such practices. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989
should, thus, be seen in the context of Section 7(1)(d) of the Civil
Rights Act.
19. Thus, basic ingredients for constituting an offence
under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, 1989 are as (a) accused person
must not be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(b) Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (c) accused must do so with
the intent to humiliate such a person; and (d) accused must do so
at any place within public view.
20. In the light of the above observation, if the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration, admittedly there is an
allegation as to the untouchability as the abuses or insults against
some of the abuse. As far as the present appellants are concerned,
against them, the general allegations is levelled, that they have
assaulted the informant and other family members. As far as the
injury certificate is concerned, which shows that two persons
rkn
19 39appeal675.+3.odt
stained the injury and i.e. also simple in nature. The allegation of
the abuses on the caste are not levelled against the present
appellants. Thus, prima-facie case is not made out against the
present appellants. It is well settled that when prima-facie case is
not made out against the accused, on perusal of the FIR, the bar
under Section 18A will not attract, and application for
anticipatory bail is mandatory.
21. In view of the above said provisions and by
considering the various judgments especially the judgment passed
in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union Of India [(2020) 4 SCC 727 ],
wherein it is held that when prima-facie case is not made out, the
application for anticipatory bail is made out and the bar under
Section 18 will not attract. In view of that all the appeals deserves
to be allowed.
a] The criminal appeals are allowed. b] The appellants (1) Vaijnath s/o Laxman Ghonge (2)
Karbhari s/o Yadavrao Ghonge (3) Vilas s/o
Samadhan Ghonge (4) Mohan s/o Appa Ghonge (5)
Umesh s/o Anantha Ghonge (6) Pravin s/o
Raghunath Ghonge (7) Pradip s/o Vishwanath
rkn
20 39appeal675.+3.odt
Ghonge (8) Bharat s/o Ganpat Ghonge (9) Gopal s/
o Bharat Ghonge (10) Ganesh s/o Kisan Ghonge (11)
Vivek s/o Samadhan Ghonge (12) Santosh s/o
Manikrao Ghonge (13) Vijay s/o Ramchandra
Ghonge (14) Bhagwat s/o Bharat Ghonge (15) shall
be released anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest
the arrest, in connection with Crime 194/2023
registered with Police Station Sindkhed Raja for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452,
354, 354-B, 395, 324, 323, 427 and read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(1)
(zc), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989,
on executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one
solvent sureties in the like amount.
c] The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Buldana in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 273/2023,
274/2023, 275/2023, 272/2023 are quashed and set
aside.
rkn
21 39appeal675.+3.odt
d] The appellants shall not induce, threat or promise
any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of
the present case.
e] All the appellants excluding Umesh Anantha Ghonge
shall attend the concerned police station once in a
week on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m.
till filing of the charge-sheet and they shall produce
the sticks, which they are holding and the said period
will be considered as their custody in view of Section
23(2) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Appeals are disposed of.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
rkn
Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/01/2025 14:52:47