Narad Patel vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1907 OF 2019 NARAD PATEL VS. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1907 of 2019)

NARAD PATEL …Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the correctness of the final Judgment

and Order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh

at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2002.

3. The appellant was tried in Special Case no.13 of 2002 on the

file of the Special Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for having

committed offences punishable under Sections 294, 506-B of IPC and

under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”, for short). It

was alleged that during the night intervening 30.09.2001 and Signature Not Verified

01.10.2001 the appellant had cut the hedge (Medh) of the paddy Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2019.05.10 17:00:19 IST Reason: field of complainant Deshiram as a result of which the field of

Deshiram went without any water. A Panchayat was called on the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1907 OF 2019 NARAD PATEL VS. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH 2 next day i.e. on 01.10.2001 in which the appellant allegedly abused

complainant Deshiram and his brother Shyam Sunder and threatened to

kill them. It was alleged that appellant abused said complainant

Deshiram and his brother who were members of a Scheduled Tribe and

thereby committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. During

the trial, certain witnesses who had attended the Panchayat Meeting

were examined and the Special Judge, Raigarh by his judgment and

order dated 23.09.2002 found the appellant guilty of the offences

under Section 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The

appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three

months on the first count and for six months under the second count

with further imposition of fine and default sentence. The appellant

was however acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC.

4. In Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2002 arising from the conviction

and sentence as aforesaid, the High Court affirmed the view taken

by the Special Judge and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and

order dated 27.11.2018, which is presently under appeal.

5. We heard Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, learned Advocate for the

appellant and Mr. Nizam Pasha, learned Advocate for the respondent.

6. It is a matter of record that the appellant has already

completed more than 4 months of imprisonment.

7. It has been found that the appellant was not guilty of the

offence under Section 506 IPC and the case presented by the

prosecution in that behalf was completely rejected. According to CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1907 OF 2019 NARAD PATEL VS. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH 3 the record, following certain acts committed by the appellant a

Panchayat was held in which some abuses were hurled by the

appellant. Going by the version of the complainant Deshiram

himself, the expressions used by the appellant during the course of

vertical altercation, did not refer to the caste or tribe that the

complainant belonged though such assertion finds place in the

testimony of the other witnesses.

8. Thus, the fact that the appellant abused the complainant

Deshiram is quite clear and as such his conviction and sentence

recorded under Section 294 IPC was fully justified. However, going

by the version of the complainant Deshiram according to which there

was no reference to the caste or tribe of the complainant, there is

a doubt as regards charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

9. In the circumstances, while affirming the conviction and

sentence of the appellant under Section 294 IPC, we grant him

benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charge under Section 3(1)(x)

of the Act.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant

be set at liberty unless his custody is required in connection with

any other matter.

………..…..……..……J.

(Arun Mishra)

..………….……………J. Uday Umesh Lalit) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1907 OF 2019 NARAD PATEL VS. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH 4 New Delhi May 10, 2019.