words per minute
9
Vishal_Thakur_vt
00:00
Speed
Ramawatar (Appellant) and Prembai (Complainant), who are neighbours and live in adjoining houses, were entangled in a property dispute with respect to a portion of land over which Prembais house was built. On 25.06.1994, Ramawatar and his brother Katulal @ Kuddu (Co accused) broke down a wall to make a door that opened into the house of Prembai.When this was resisted by her, a quarrel ensued between the parties and the Appellant threw a brick at the Complainant. Thereafter, this incident was reported and a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Devendra Nagar on the same date itself, and an M.L.C was also performed. Since the nature of the injury was simple, and the offence was found noncognizable, the Police took no further steps. On the following day, i.e., 26.06.1994, when the Complainant was sitting in front of her residence, the Appellant and his brother appeared at the scene. They were visibly enraged by the fact that Prembai had lodged an F.I.R. against them. They started abusing her with repeated reference to her caste whilst also threatening her of dire consequences. After that, the Complainant and her husband Chotelal reported this incident before the Harijan Welfare Police Station, and the subject F. I.R. under the SC/ST Act was lodged against the Accused. The investigation commenced in light of the afore stated facts. Upon collection of substantial evidence, Appellant and coaccused were committed to trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The Trial Court noted that the Complainant belonged to the Prajapati community which is a Scheduled Caste. It was also observed that the parties had candidly admitted to a pending property dispute between them. The Trial Court further discerned that the prosecution witnesses had, by and large, supported the version of the Complainant and had indubitably substantiated that Ramawatar and Kuddu used deprecatory language upon the Complainant. It was found that the Appellant had made specific reference to the Complainant's caste escorted by the intent to insult her. The actions of the Appellant & co accused Kuddu were thus held to be in contravention of Section 3(1).