KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1179 · Decided: 04-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1179 
> 
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLi 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1967 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 4, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(1)(v) - Evidence established that c 
accused interfered with possession and enjoyment of rights 
of the complainant over land and also damaged sugarcane 
crops thereon by using a tractor - Complainant belonged to 
ST community - Held: Accused liable to be convicted ul 
s.3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act as a/so u/s.427 /PC - Penal p 
Code, 1860 - s.427 . 
.. 
Words and Phrases - Mischief - Meaning of - Penal 
Code, 1860 - s. 425. 
Criminal Law - Conviction under Atrocities Act and under E 
/PC - However, accused stated to be suffering from paralysis 
- Hence, direction issued that he need not surrender for 3 
months -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989- s.3(1)(v) - Penal Code, 
F 
1860 - s.427. 
The prosecution case was that appellant interfered 
with the possession and enjoyment of PW1 over the land 
in question and also damaged the sugarcane crops 
thereon by using a tractor. PW1 belonged to the G 
Scheduled Tribe Community . 
.. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged her 
conviction under s.427 IPC and s.3(1 )(v) of the Atrocities 
1179 
H 
1180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. s.3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Cast~s and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
8 
makes punishable any wrongful dispossession of any 
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his k 
land or premises or interference with the enjoyment of 
his rights over his land, pr«;!mises or water. PWs 1, 2 & 3 
have proved that the accused had not only interfered 
C with the possession and enjoyment of the claimant over 
the land, but also damaged the crops thereon. Therefore, 
the Higli Court was justified in holding the accused guilty 
of offence punishable under s.3(1 )(v) of the Atrocities Act. 
[Para 8, 10 and 11] [1184-B, C, D, E] 
D 
1.2. So far as s.427 IPC is concerned, the exp,ressiqn 
"mischief' has been defined in s.425 IPC to mean an act 
" 
done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to 
cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any 
E person, causes the destruction of any property etc. In the 
instant. case the evidence on record clearly establishes 
that the sugarcane stems in the fields of the claimant were 
totally destroyed by using a tractor. Therefore, s.427 IPC 
is clearly established. [Para 11] [1184-E-F] 
F 
1.3. However, it was stated before this Court that 
appellant had suffered from paralysis on the left side of 
her body and inspite of treatment is unable to walk. In 
view of the statement made, it is directed that for a period 
of three months the appellant need not surrender. [Paras 
G 12 and 13] [1184-G-H; 1185-A-B] 
, 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1°967 of 2008. 
· 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2007 of the High 
KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOU v. STATE OF GUJARAT 1181 
> 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 920 of A 
1996. 
Aniruddha P. ly1ayee, Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Rucha 
A. Mayee and Sanjay Visen for the Appellant. 
Yashank Adhyaru, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky and Somnath 
B 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court confirming the 
conviction of the· appellant for offence punishable under Section 
427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and D 
under Section 3(1 )(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 
'Atrocities Act'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at 
Vyara in Special Case No.19 of 1995 found the accused guilty 
of offences, punishable under Section 427 IPC as well as 
Sections 3(1 )(iv) and 3(1 )(v) of the Atrocities Act and E 
sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine 
of Rs.500/- with default stipulation for the offence relatable to 
Section 427 IPC and four years for the offence under the 
Atrocities Act with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The two substantive 
sentences were not made concu~rent. It needs to be noted that 
F 
the appellant was charged with having committed offence under 
Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.