Pappu Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Pappu Singh vs State of U.P.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 06, 2001

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/488434

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/488434
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: U.S. Tripathi, J.
Decided On: Nov 06, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Revn. No. 2433 of 2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323 and 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pappu Singh

Advocate K.N. Mishra, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323 and 506
Reported In: 2002CriLJ1251

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....when they proceeded near the garage of uncle of pappu singh. accused pappu singh again started beating but he could not identify at that place. he did not use ugly words relating to his caste. assuming that the applicant had used word 'chamariya' and addressed the complainant with the said words, it can not make out the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the act, is simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute the offence under said section. moreover this witness has stated that the applicant had not used ugly words relating to the caste of the complainant. in this way there was no evidence on record to make out offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the act against the applicant and the finding recorded by the learned special judge was without evidence and was thus perverse. a perverse finding of fact can be interfered with in the revision. as such there was no justification in convicting and sentencing the applicant under section 3(1)(x) of the act. thus, the revision succeeds.8. the revision is, accordingly, allowed. the conviction and sentence of applicant under section 3(1)(x) of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is set aside and he is acquitted under the said section. the fine, if deposited shall be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

U.S. Tripathi, J.

1. This revision has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 4-10-2001 passed by Sri N.B. Singh, Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 3, Deoria in Special Trial No. 52 of 2001, convicting the applicant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 only.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated was that on 20-9-92 at about 7.00 p.m. at Kasba Bhatpar Rani, P.S. Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, the applicant voluntarily caused hurt to Ashok Kumar and also threatened him to kill. He lodged a report of the said occurrence. On the basis of the report a case under Section 323/506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called the Act) was registered. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet. During trial before the special Judge the prosecution examined Ashok Kumar (PW 1), Ram Nandan (PW 2), Ram Cheej (PW 3) and Nandani Prasad (PW 4). The learned special Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution found that the offences punishable under Section 323/506 IPC were not made out against the applicant and he acquitted him under the said sections, but he further held that the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was proved against him. He accordingly convicted him under the said section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- only. Since no appeal lies against the sentence of fine, not exceeding Rs. 200/-, therefore, the applicant challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that out of four witnesses examined by the prosecution Ram Cheej and Nandji had turned hostile and they had not supported the prosecution story and that complainant Ashok Kumar, (PW 1) and Ram Nandan Prasad, (PW 2) had partly supported the prosecution story and their evidence does not prove the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Section 3(1)(i) of the Act reads as under :-

(3)(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe:

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

5. Thus the offence under said section is made out if a person not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe inten tionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

6. The Judgment of the trial Court itself shows that there was nothing in the statement of Ashok Kumar (PW 1) to show that the applicant intentionally insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate him. However, he stated that the applicant and his companions used ugly words relating to his caste. What were those ugly words have not been specified. Unless the words uttered by the applicant have come in the evidence, it can not be ascertained that those words amounted to insult or intimidate the witness.

7. The other witnesses Ram Nandan Prasad, (PW 2) stated that two or three persons accompanying Pappu Singh (applicant) had used words 'CHAMARIYA' when they proceeded near the garage of uncle of Pappu Singh. Accused Pappu Singh again started beating but he could not identify at that place. He did not use ugly words relating to his caste. Assuming that the applicant had used word 'CHAMARIYA' and addressed the complainant with the said words, it can not make out the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, is simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute the offence under said section. Moreover this witness has stated that the applicant had not used ugly words relating to the caste of the complainant. In this way there was no evidence on record to make out offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the applicant and the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge was without evidence and was thus perverse. A perverse finding of fact can be interfered with in the revision. As such there was no justification in convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Thus, the revision succeeds.

8. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. The conviction and sentence of applicant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside and he is acquitted under the said section. The fine, if deposited shall be refunded.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Pappu Singh vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge U.S. Tripathi, J. Acts & Sections Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitie...

Criminal