iv. fel£S1 . •^"^^a-.;' .»<-***—^ .asiii' •::^::?^ R*M CF0000057852 f ^SCS^Wgtff^lSSISSIISffiBMSI^^K WtSSWKS SSiMi@^S!SSS^S9S^ a: ./s|^'.nl^^Yj%K^/^%i.^''^^ylg^'^ mM Wsamef .Ibi TOe, HIOH- GOUBT; OE;JiaADHyA ^PRAOESy AT^ JAan.LPUR^ Griaa.ncfl; Appaa.l.'^No. ;'S>7ic /l'i>95. /. / APPSBSAMrs • . '. :; .1. '.' l^enatra y;aa:Waged '24 years "' .. • son ef'Shtv Baehan B/o villai^ Kuaa^ <Sc>npu^^ Qis-fcnc'c.efaHap.g& (.Blitar) .- 2. ^Jadu yadcivsQn^of Janakran' . aged 35 years.B/oHajxpura . .'-'. ':-:'/ /...\: _.'... --.^,./.^ :' . •; /••,l,'1.13ist,.BaxshalJ.,4Bii-iai;)':V"^^\ ::1;-.';,•' -• - : ,'l'a't'':;I:)re:seat..:.AiSi.Be:s:/Qu:arteri-';:1' ': . \g.shra^)ttr,^Oa.st.Sargujs .' .• "^ / ..•1^.' / ^.ShivBotfa^ageci ^•aooyfe:' 36 .years : -.f •". ^. ;:^g®tgBi;E.-.»Jai»ak-fiaa Yad sv:-; •'• ^1; ^ ••.-.•-^.i/3ig3S"M'ne;s/.Quax-ter V£siirai^t*r,: ':,.Gi:istiici.Sa8guja,M.p..':..^l.;':. -"' ••-...'-ye.ifaus'-'.'.'.'-.i,'' ..'';•'.' ! ;: .:: , ' -^ B2SSO: BENr.,.':J,-^-Sfcai;e;df:,^hya'PEade^^^ .^1:1 ,^ '• ,iti' { t' f 11: t? i. t^,:^•. ^'.:i: '*ts- w ^ <s »^ B! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1995. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Upendra Yadav and others. State of Madhya Pradesh. liii, Shri Vivek Sharma and Shri Keshav Gupta counsel for appellants 1 and 2. Shri S.K. Dadsena counsel for appellant No.3. Shri Rajendra Tripathi PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CR1MINAL PROCEDURE. yUDGhflENT (04.02.2010) This appeat is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1995 passed by Additional (Special)' Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Special Case No. 18/1992 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocittes).. Act and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one'year with fineof Rs. 500. They have further been convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearwith fine of Rs. 300 forcausing injury to Taregani Bai (PW-1). They have also -Been convicted for the offence under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo/rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 300 for caLTsirfg injury to Dukhitram. In default of payment of fine they have also been directed <tQ, undergo simple imprisonment for three months and two months respectively for each offence. 2: Case ciT the prosecution in farief is that on 30.12.1991 FIR Ex. i P-1 was Todged by Dukhitram (PW-2) at Police outpost Vishrampur ef Rolice Station Jainagar to the effect that on that day his wife was abused by'the accused/appellants. It is also alleged thatwhen this witness tried to intervene in the matter, he was also abused and assaulted by them. Subsequently, on the basis of FIR case diary was transferred to police Station Jainagar where the offence was registered against the accused/appellants vide Ex. P-3. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recor.ded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one witness namely Basant Kumar Singh was also examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / gppellants for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material availableon record including thejudgmentimpugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submit that on account of some civil dispute some minor incident might have taken place but the prosecution witnesses have presented the same in an exaggerated manner falsely implicating the accused/appellants. According to them, on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses the offence under Section 3 (1-) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be maje out against the accused/appellants.because not even a single witness has made>.ar%/ allegation which could have attracted the provisions of thie Special Act. They argyed that looking to the inconsistency in the statements of Taregani Bai (PW-1) and Dukhitram (PW-2) even the offence under Section 323 IPC is not made out against them as Dukhitram (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that the report was lodged by his wife whereas in fact the report has been lodged by this witness himself. Counsel for the appellants further submit that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution in support of its case. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondenfState supports the judgment impugned. •» 8. From the statement of Taregani Bai (PW-1) it appears that there was some dispute between her family and that of the accused/appellants over construction of a house. She has stated that prior to the date of incident the accused/appellants had told her that they would not permit the flow of dirty water in front of their house. According to her, on the date of incident the accused/appellants had snatched her nose pin and assaulted her with the club as a result of which she had sustained injury on her hand. She has stated that her husband, who was present on the spot, was also assaulted fty them. From the statement of this witness it is clear that on the date 6f incident she was not abused by the accused/appellants in the name of her caste. Her statement also goes to show that no specific role has been attributed to any of the accused/appellants and all the allegations made by her are of general nature. Furthermore, according to this witness, as a result of assault by the accused/appellants her husband had become unconscious but the FIR (Ex. P-1) has been lodged by her husband Dukhitram (PW-2) himselfand thus it becomes doubtful as to how he had lodged the FIR when he had become unconscious. According to this witness when her husband became unconscious he was shifted to th^Jiospital. Dukhitram (PW-2) who is the lodger of the FIR has stated that on account of draining out of dirty water there was some dispute with th^ accused/appellants who had asked him not to drain out dirty water in front of their b^se and on account of that he and his wife were assaulted by them. According to this witness first he was beaten and when he had gone inside the house, his wife was also beaten. Thus there appears to be contradictions in the statement of this witness and that of his wife Taregani Bai (PW-1). In paragrapb 8,of this evidence this witness has stated that after the incident he haCl beGome unconscious and the report was lodged by li M :'lb- ^N i ^' 't IJy -^- his wife whereas the FIR (Ex.P-1) goes to show that it was lodged by this witness himself. In paragraph 12 of his cross examination this witness admits that the incident was witnessed by number of persons but none of them had agreed to give evidence against the accused/appellants saying that it was he who was at fault and not the accused/appellants. From the statement of this witness it is clear that the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not .attracted to thiscase because no abuse in the name of fheir caste was attributed to the accused/appellants. Moreover, the prosecution has faited to establish that the incident had taken place in public view. Dr. K.K. Tamrakar (PW-4) who had examined the complainant (PW-2) and his wife Taregani Bai (PW-1 ) though has found number of injuries on their body, he has categorically stated that the said injuries could have been caused by hard.ahcl blunt object but no seizure of club or other such articlesallege.dly used by the accused/appellants has been made by the prosecution, 9. From the entire material available on record it can very well be said that the statements of Taregani Bai (PW-1) and her husband Dukhitram (PW-2) who had lodged the FIR (^x. P-1) being full of contradictions and omissions.'do not inspire confidence of this Court so as to base the convictionof the accused/appellants thereon and that being so the appellants are entitled to have the benefit of doubt. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 22.2.1995 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as mentioned above is set aside. Accused/appellants are acquitted of the charggs levelled against them. ••t^ Pritinker Diwaker Judge . Pi