' ^' HtGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinnleBench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellants Non-Appellant Respondent Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2002 % 1. Ratiram, S/o Janakram Sahu, aged about 30 years 2. Sahdev, S/o Janefkram Sahu, aged about 23 years 3. Lalit, S/o Hariram Sahu, aged about 23 years 4. Tirath, S/o Janakram Sahu, aged about36years All R/o Village Girwani, Police Station Bitaigarh, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sushil Dybey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered onthis 02"" day of IWarch, 2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-11-2001 delivered by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.19/2001, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 days, i.e., already undergone by them and alsp to a fine of Rs.500/- each. (2) The fine imposed has been paid. (3) Brief facts are that on 12-11-2000 at about 10 A.M., Parasram, P.W.-3 lodged a report at Potice Station Bitaigarh that on returning home to Vitlage Bhatgaon with his father Saheblal, P.W.-4, he met appellants Ratiram and Sahdev, who were irrigating their Sad/from the pubtic utility pamp. Parasram requested them to irrigate his Badi alsoand agreed to make,a deposit in the Gram Panchayat. However, there was a dispute J- 1 A- 1U; st ' 'rl^i (..'" —2-- regarding the amount to be charged for the said purpose updn which appellants Ratiram and Sahdev hurled filthy abuses and taking the caste name of Parasram assaulted him with a Kudali. Appellants Lalit and Tirath also arrived atthe spot and a fight ensued between the appeltants and Parasram and Saheblal. Dharminbai, P.W.-5, sister of Parasram intervened and was atso assaulted. After oompletion of investigation, challan under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act') and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the appellants. (4) The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. However, it convicted the appellants for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as aforesaid in paragraph 1. (5) Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants drew attention ofthis Court to certain discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution. It was urged that while Parasram, P.W.-3 had stated that Tirath had assaulted him by Kudali on the head, Saheblal, P.W.-4 stated that it was appellant Ratiram, who had assaulted Parasram by the Kudali. It was also urged that medical evidence of Dr. Narayan Singh, P.W.-6 that no external injury was found on Dharminbai ran counter to her ocular testimony. Testimony of Bhishamprasad, D.W.-1 was also read over to show that the appellants were innocent. (6) On the other hand, Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondent argued in support ofthe impugned judgment. (7) Having considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses Parasram, P.W.-3 and Saheblal, P.W.-4 leaves no room for any doubt that there •l^- 'rz^. -3 was an altercation between the appellants and Parasram, Saheblal and Dharminbai. The incident had occurred on a trifling matter of irrigating the fields of Parasram and Saheblal. Appellant Sahdev was at. the relevant time Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. A prompt F.1. R. (Ex.P-7) lodged by Parasram soon after the occurrence at Police Station Bilaigarh and the testimony of Dr. Narayan Singh, P.W.-6 that he found external injuries on Parasram and Saheblal fully corroborate the version of Parasram, P.W.-3 and Saheblal, P.W.-4. It is true that Dr. Narayan Singh, P.W.-6 did not find any external injury on Dharminbai, P.W.-5 yet the fact remains that there was an altercation between the appellants and Parasram, Saheblal and Dharminbai. Even Bhishamprasad, D.W.-1 admitted that there was a fight between Parasram and appellant Ratiram. (8) Having considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, 1 am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge rightly held the appellants guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge, therefore, does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal