- w I/llHIH/IIIIIII CF ”man/rim C§§/” 0 0806 E aw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC§TURE AT JABALPUB Criminal Appeal No. 3U§ of 1997 APPELLANTS : l. Dakwar Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Rajput aged about 65 years 2. Goverahan’ Singh/s/o Dakwr Siégn 3ajpa/t aged about 26 years“” /// Both R/O Village Barpani, Police Statio Pithora, Tahsil Mahasamund, Distt. Raipur VERSUS RESPONDENT$ $tate of M.P. through Special Police Station Raipurr/ cormcmxow _ U/s 3(1)(X) OF THE scHEDULED mamg 4ND ATmROCITIES) SCHEDULED TRIBE'swBéviBNTmN :4§T,19é9 OF SENTENCE - 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 500/- APPEAL U/3 374§22 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL ?ROGEDURE,;973 . ~ é n ’ Q? HIGH COURT G? CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILAS?UR Singie Beach ; Hon‘bie AM“. Jusi‘wg Pri?!n%§e,r Diwgker Criminal Appecé N9. 215 of 1997 APPELLANTS akwar’ Singh <§ anm‘her. D Versus 5mm of Madhya Pradesh (now C(rT) Shri Ani! @uimi, counse§ for The appe§§anm 31m Vaibhav Ar éovercihan, Panei Lawyer for ‘Fne 5mm. CRIMINAL APP§AL UNDER SECTIGN 37$ (2} OF THE €ODE CF (CRIMENAL ?R§CE§U§E kE5?ONDENT Jummgm (04.G4,2m1) This appeal is dwem‘ed against fhg impugnecj judgmen‘? and order- dated 8.1.1997 gagsed by Spgciai Judge, Qaipur’ in Specmi Criminal Case 153/1996; mnvécféng fhe accuged/appeilcmt for The offence gunishabie under Sem‘ion 3 {1) (x) of the Schedu§ed Casfa <§ Scheduied Tribe (Prevention 6f Afroch‘ies) ACT (for shom‘ ‘fhe AC1”) and senTencing each of fhem Te underga rigomus imprisanmen‘f for six mam‘hs and pay fine 0f Rs.500/-. 2. Case 0f “the pmsecu‘fian in brief is The? an 28.7.1995 a wri‘r'fen repom‘ (ExaP—l) was iadged by camplainanf Chamar Singh (PW—1) s‘raTiag fher‘ein the? 0n 26.11995 a? abou‘? 3 gm in a public place ‘H‘ie accused/appelian‘rs had tailed him Adivasi, asked ’nim to remain wi‘ihin his limit and fur‘rher' mid him iha’r despite governmeni sheh‘er‘ he wiii be oppressed by The appe§gnis Seseé on This writi‘ien report, FIR. i ; (EXP-5) was registered against the occused/eopeimnts under Section 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) {xi) of Act; After investigation cha/J’an was fiied on 19.8.1995 for the said offences. However, while framing the charge, the triai Court has framed the charges under Section 506(B)/34 and 294/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 3. So as To held. The accusedfappeEiams guil‘ry, prosecu’rion has examined as many as Oé wifnesses in suppom‘ of 31‘s case. Sfafemenfs 3f the accused/appeimmrs were aisa recordad under Section 313 of The Code 0f Crimimi Prec‘edur‘a in which They demed ’rhe charges ievelied agaim‘r fhem and pleaded their“ innocence and faise implica‘rion in the case. Apam‘ fmm This, Bhagwan Singh (DW—l) has also been examined by The defence in support of ifs case. 4. Affer‘ hearing the parties the Triai Ceur‘f has acqui‘H'ed fhe accused/appeiian?s of The affences under- Sections 506(B)/34 and 294/34 of fhe Indian Penai Code but has convicfed and senfenced fhem for The. affence punishabie under Sec‘rian 3(1)(x) of fhe Scheduied Cosm and‘ Scheduied Tribe {Prevenfion of Afroch‘ies) Act 5k Counsel for :fhe appeiionfs submifs mm The prosecution has foiled +0 prove The cage of fhe compiainam‘ because The campiainan‘t had filed the castfe eer'rifim’re issued by Serponch (Ex.P-2) which is no? admissibie in fhe eye of law. He submiis ‘tha‘t casfe of fhe compieinon? has been d§sputed by The accused/’appellanTs and, Therefore, The prceeeuTien was under The obiigaTion To file iegaiiy admissibie documenT To This effect He furTher submiTs ThaT a very improbable sTory has been puT forTh by The erasecuTion. He also submiTs ThaT The accused/’appellanTs have been falsely impiica‘l’ed jusT because in The panchayaT eiecTion They had opposed The complainanT. He also submiTs ThaT There is an inordinaTe delay in ladging The FirsT Informa‘rion ReigorT. Accoraing To him inciden‘l‘ is said To have Taken place on 26.7.1995 whereas The wriTTen reporT (EXP-1) was lodged on 28.71995 and There is no exolana'l'ion for iodging This reporT afTer in an inordinaTe delay. 6. On The o‘i'her hand counsel for The respondenT/STaTe submiTs ThaT The iudgmenT under challenge being sTricTly in accordance wiTh iaw is jusf and proper and dees not suffer from any iliegalify or infirmity. 7. I have heard caunsei for fhe par’ries and perused The ma‘rer'mi available an record ineiuding The judgmen‘r impugned. 8m Complamcm’r Chamar‘ Singh (PW-1) has sm‘red in his evidence Thai? on the dafe cf inciden'i The accused/appeiian‘is had coiled him Adivasi in a pubiic piece, asked him fa remain wiihin his iimi‘!’ and further fold. him E‘ha‘i despite gavemment shelter he wilt be oppressed by the appeliants. He has further stated that they have alsa threatened him that he would he sent behind the bar. He has admitted the tact that earlier the case was registered by the accused/appeliaht No. 1 Dakwar Singh and he was subjected to triai under Section 324 of the lhdtah Penal Code. There appears to be material contradictions and amissians in paragraph 8 of his cross examination. He has further admitted the fact that proceedings under Sections 107 and 13.6 of the Code of Criminat Procedure were initiated against him. Jeevan Lai Patel (PWHZ) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was sitting aiong with the complainant, acCLised/appeiiant reached there and stated that the Adivasi cannot do anything against them. He has admitted. the fact that under the supervision at the compiainant one schoai is being constructed in the viiiage and a Panchayat meeting was also caiied in relation to the irreguiarities in the construction. Nirmal Singh Thakur (PW-3) and Govindram (PW-4) are the witnesses who had not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Puneetram (PW-5) while supporting the case of the prosecution has stated that when he was sitting along with the complainant, accused persons reached there and started hurling abuses on him. He has stated that the complainant was also abused in the name of his cage by 'rhe accused/a9ge!!anf No. 1 Dakwar Singh. Hewever, There are material confmdicfion and emissions in his ceur? sfm‘emem' from Tha? cf his case diary sfcn‘emenf recorded under Section 161 CrtP,C.. ASI A15~Nemm (PW-6) is The Investiga‘ring Officer who has 3uppcr’red fhe case 0f the pmsecm‘ian. Bhagwcm Singh (DW—i) has sfcn‘ed in his evidence ihai' n0 such inciden'i had Taken place on ‘rhe dcn‘e cf incident According i'o him, compiainanir Chamar Singh (PW-1) is Mawar' by cas’re which comes under The category of oTher' backward class and he is rioi Triabie. He has furiher sTa'I’ed Thai as per ‘ihe casie ceriificate (Ex.D—2) issued by The Sarponch of Gram Panchaya’r, Barpani, Block Kasdoi The compiainan‘i is no‘r an Adivasi by casie. 9i Ii is an admi‘i‘ied posi’rion Thai no vaiid cas‘ie ceriifica‘ie or any o’rher reia‘i'ed documen‘r to ihis effect which is a sine qua nan for holding The accused/appellant guih‘y under ‘ihe special Aci, has been produced by The prosecui’ion +0 show ’rhm‘ ihe complainant belongs i0 ’rhe scheduled casie communify. S’ra‘remen‘rs of The witnesses are coniradiciory To each oTher and They have given differenT sTories. There appears To be maTerial conTradicTions in The sTaTemenT of The wiTnesses from ThaT of Their case diary sTaTemenTs recorded under SecTion 161 of The Code of The Criminai Procedure. The invesTigaTion has been done by Sub inspecTor whereas as per ruie 7 of The ACT, 1995, iT oughT To have been done by Senior Gfficer noT below The rank of Depu’ry SuperinTendenT of Police. FurTher The incidenT is said To have Taken place on 26.7.1995 whereas wrlTTen reporT has been lodged afTer abouT Two days i.e, 28.7.1995 and The said delay has noT been explained properly by The prosecuTion. Thus The enTlre evidence adduced by The prosecuTion does noT inspire confidence of This courT w i Weekend i WWW: W mm @ I ?| and in These circums’mnces i’r wiii n01" be safe for *fhis Caur‘f To ‘1 convicf The accused/appeilan‘r under Secficn 3 (1)(x) of The ACT. 10. AfTer' going Through The enTire maTer’iaT availabie on record, This Court is of The considered opinion ThaT as The prosecuTion has LITTerly foiled To esTobiish iTs case by ieoding cogenT and clinching evidence, The benefiT of doubT musT go To The accused/oppeiionT. Accordingiy, The appeal is aiiowed. impugned judgmenT convicTing and senTencing The accused/appeiianT is hereby seT aside. Appeiiam‘ is acquiTTed oT‘The charges ieveiied againsT him. The appeiianTs are reporTed To be on baii, bail bonds furnished by Them sTand discharged. i six/.- Pritinker Diwaker Judge