Patna High Court
Pujan Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 19 December, 2024
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2144 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2003 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. PUJAN THAKUR Son of Late Kali Thakur Resident of Village - Gadiyani
Ward No.4, P.S.- Madhubani, Dist.- Madhubani.
2. Shrawan Thakur Son of Late Shambhu Thakur Resident of Village -
Gadiyani Ward No.4, P.S.- Madhubani, Dist.- Madhubani.
3. Guddu Thakur Son of Pujan Thakur Resident of Village - Gadiyani Ward
No.4, P.S.- Madhubani, Dist.- Madhubani.
4. Amarnath Thakur Son of Pujan Thakur Resident of Village - Gadiyani Ward
No.4, P.S.- Madhubani, Dist.- Madhubani.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bauye Jee Jha
Mr. Bimal Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant : Ms. Kusum Rani
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2024
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as
well as learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against
Judgment and Conviction dated 25.04.2019 in C.R. Case No.
274/2003/T.R No. 55/2019 passed by Ist Additional Sessions
Judge cum Special Judge, Madhubani whereby and whereunder
the appellants have been found guilty of offence under sections
341, 323, 504/34 I.P.C and Sections 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
2/10
1989 (For short the 'SC/ST Act') Act and sentenced them of
imprisonment of 1 month under Section 341, 1 year under
Section 323, 2 years under Section 504 I.P.C and 2 years under
Section 3(i) (x) 'SC/ST Act' and Rupees 1000/- as fine, in
failure of payment of fine appellants have to undergo further
imprisonment of 3 months imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that one Kishori Safi
filed a Complaint bearing No. 274/2003 in the Court of C.J.M
Madhubani arraying 6 (six) persons as accused including the
appellants for the offences punishable under sections 147, 341,
323, 379, 504, 34 I.P.C and Sections 3 (ⅰ)(x) of the 'SC/ST Act'.
S.A was recorded on 19.05.2003, on 30.05.2003 and
11.06.2003
. Ganesh Safi and Lakshmi Safi were examined
under section 202 Cr.P.C. By order dated 21.01.2004, the C.J.M
took cognizance and issued process under section 204 Cr.PC.
for the offences under sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 34 I.P.C and
Sections 3 (x) of the ‘SC/ST Act’. Accordingly T.R No. 407/04
was registered. The case was transferred to Special Judge Cum
Ist A.D.J., Madhubani. Charges were framed on 28.11.2006 for
offence under sections 341, 323, 504/34, 379 of the I.P.C and
Sections 3(i) (x) of the ‘SC/ST Act’.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
3/10
appellant that 7 witnesses were examined for prosecution as P.W
1- Ganesh Safi, P.W 2- Lakshmi Safi, P.W 3- Kishori Safi, P.W
4- Chandra Kumar Das, P.W 5- Subhash Chandra Mishra, P.W
6- Ram Parikshan Yadav, P.W 7- Nathuni Mehta.
5. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that
that Ist Addl. Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, Madhubani
through his Judgment/Conviction dated 25.04.2019 in C.R. No.
274/2003/T.R. No. 55/2019 found the appellants guilty and
accordingly sentenced them for 1 month under Section 341, 1
year under Section 323, 2 years under Section 504 and 2 years
under Section 3(i)(x) of the ‘SC/ST Act’ and Rs. 1000/- as fine.
He submits that the Court ordered to undergo imprisonment
concurrently with further direction to undergo 3 months
imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The Triral Court has
granted provisional bail to the appellants till 25.05.2019 which
was continued by this Court.
6. It is argued that the Trial Court failed to consider that
the impugned Criminal case was lodged on account of Land
dispute and the trial Court failed to consider that prosecution has
filed Complaint without approaching the Police.
7. He next submits that trial Court erroneously held that
appellants committed offence under provisions of the ‘SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
4/10
Act’ whereas dispute between the parties is going on.
8. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that
alleged occurrence was not with the intent to humiliate the
complainant in public view and no independent witness has
been examined on behalf of prosecution rather the witnesses are
interested witness. Hence, the impugned Judgment and
conviction is vitiated.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor Smt. Usha
Kumari has submitted that the impugned judgment is a well
reasoned judgment and the same cannot be interferred with.
The Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellants under the
provisions of the ‘SC/ST Act’ and the other provisions of the
10. P.W.-1 is the son of the informant. In his examination-
in-chief, he has supported the prosecution case but in the cross-
examination, he has said that he does not remember the date of
occurrence. He does not remember as to when he had gone to
call the Amin. He does not remember the time at which he
reached the municipality and he does not remember the time
when the Amin reached the disputed land. He has further said
that the occurrence took place long back. He also says that the
Amin had accompanied with a person whose name he does not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
5/10
remember. He has also said in his cross-examination that his
father has sustained 14-15 injuries but he had not fainted. He
has also said that they had not taken the injured to the hospital.
11. P.W.-2 is the second son of the informant who who
has also supported the prosecution case. In his cross-
examination, he has said that his father was beaten with fists and
slaps and no injury was caused to him. He has also said that he
does not remember the date of occurrence, the date of
measurement and he does not remember the name of the person
who accompanied the Amin. The measurement was going on at
04:30 p.m.
12. P.W.-3 is the informant of the case. He has supported
the prosecution case and has said that they were assaulted with
fists and slaps because of land dispute. In his cross-examination,
he has said that he had not gone to the doctor or the police
station. He further says that the lawyer had drafted the
complaint and he had put his thumb impression of the
complaint. He does not know what was written in the complaint.
He further says that the case has been filed to make Shiv Pujan
to leave the land. He further says that if Shiv Pujan leaves the
land then he will withdraw the case. He has also said that he
does not know the date of occurrence, the month of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
6/10
and does not know who had done the measurement. He does not
know as to who had called the Amin. He further says that there
was no mark of injury therefore he cannot show that. In the
occurrence, he had become senseless because of the scuffle.
13. P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 are formal witness and P.W. 7
has been declared hostile.
14. From the evidence of the witnesses, the very
occurrence becomes doubtful. The material witnesses are the
two sons and their father who is the complainant. They have not
been able to given the details of the date and month of
occurrence. There are contradictions in the statement of the
witnesses. P.W.-1 has said that his father had sustained 10-15
injuries whereas P.W.-3 the Complainant has said that there is no
outer mark or outer injury sustained by him. P.W.-3 has has
further said that he had given his thumb impression on the
complaint prepared by his lawyer but he does not know what
was written in the complaint and the case has been filed because
of the land dispute and if the land is given to him, he will
withdraw the complaint.
15. In the case of Darshrath Sahu Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh ( 2024 SCC Online SC 72) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:-
“6. The short point arising for consideration of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
7/10Court is as to whether the conviction of the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST
Act and the rejection of the application under Section 320
CrPC was justified and lawful.
7. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act reads as below:-
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,-
(1)-(x)…..
(x) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to
dishonour or outrage her modesty;
8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that
the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed
with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled
Caste category.
9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn
testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the
judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial
Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn
testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the
prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household
jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to
outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was
doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the
highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was
not committed by the accused with the intention that he was
doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of
Maharashtra wherein it was held as below:
“9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that
whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the
Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
8/10a term of ten years or more against a person or
property on the ground that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
or such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the
effect that the appellant committed the offence
alleged against him on the ground that the deceased
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be
a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the
Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the
basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such
ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both
the trial court and the High Court missed the
essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial
court as well as by the High Court ought to be set
aside.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a
case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is
pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must
be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being
done on the ground of caste.”
16. Section 3(1)(s) and Section 3(1)(x) reads as follows:-
“(s) abuse any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within pubic
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
9/10view;
(x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring,
reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members
of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to
render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily
used”
17. Though the appellants have been convicted under
Section 3 (1)(x), but in my opinion, no offence under 3(1)(x) is
made out against the appellants.
18. From the evidence brought on record, the prosecution
has not been able to prove the occurrence beyond reasonable
doubt and from the evidence of the informant itself it appears
that the complaint was filed with an intention to get the land.
The complainant does not know what has been written in the
complaint. He does not remember the date of occurrence, the
month of occurrence and the other vital details. Similar, is the
case with the two witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
19. From the reading of the complaint, it appears that the
alleged offending act was not committed by the appellants with
an intention that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste
category.
20. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed.
21. Accordingly, the Judgment and Conviction dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2144 of 2019 dt.19-12-2024
10/10
25.04.2019 in C.R. Case No. 274/2003/T.R No. 55/2019 passed
by Ist Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Madhubani
is hereby set aside.
22. The appellants shall be discharged from the liabilities
of the bail bonds.
23. Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of
accordingly.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Saif/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 16.01.2025 Transmission Date 16.01.2025