M THB HIGH COUKT 02' •3UI3ICATURE A3' J^KiLPUBf ^.^ C/1rW crl.inalwal ,,c.1f7 ^^^wd) ^^ Appeallant:- S»R« patra s/o j.p. patra sahayak van E'arik&hetr a- x^dhikari Mahasammad District Baipur < Versus CFb'Oo6"061"3'1'S11 Respondents- Stat.e of M.P« through S.Q. Mahasaratod Dsitrict Raipur <M<P.)« CR.&IXWd, K^WSKL UNDES SECTIGN 374 Cr,P.C» @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 1997 VERSUS S.R. Patra State of Chhattisgarh. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OR CRIMINALPROCEDURE 1"^ Present: Smt Hameeda Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Shri V.A. Goverdhan, PL forthe respondent/State. JUDGMENT (11.05.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.03.1997 passed by Special Judge, Raipur jn Speci^l Crimjnal Case No.85/19^5 convteting the accused/appeltant und^r Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Trit)^ (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth the 'Act, 1989') an^l 294 of IPC sentencing him to undergo R.l. for six months and pa^ fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further underg^ additional R.l. for three months under the Act, 1989 and to underg^) Simple imprisonment for one month under Section 294 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.1991, typed repor| (Ex.P-1) was lodged by complainant Ramkrishna Miri (PW-1) befor^ Station House Officer, Harijan Thana, Raipur alleging therein that h^ is working as Manager in the Primary Vanopaj Co-operative Society whereas, one Shobhit Ram Dhruw (PW-2) is the President of the said Society. He has alleged that on 19.07.1991, he had gone to th^ office of the accused/appellant and made request for the payment of the wages of the labourers who have coHected the Tendti leaves t<? .•^:'~''f^^\ '^ ^';;^ '"'•• 'i;v/1 ; :-"' x the tune of Rs.81,270/-. In reply. it was stated by the accused/appellant that the sakl amount has not been sanetioned by the Government. It is further alleged that when the complainant had asked the accused/appellant as to when the amount would come, because the labourers are suffering and when he asked the accused/appellant to give the date in writing so that he can satisfy the labourers then, the accused/appeltant had abused him by using fitthy language and also in the name of his caste. He has further alleged that the accused/appeUant also caught hold hjs cdlar and when he was about to assault him, Shobhtt Ram Dhruw (PW-2) intervened in the matter. After receiving this report. enquiry was made and thereafter on 12.01.1992, F.I.R. Ex.P-2 was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 294 and 506 Part-11 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, 1^9. After investigation, challan was filed on 26.12.1992 under the above sections. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 3 wttnesses whereas, two dNence witnesses have been examined by the accused/appellant. Statement of the accused was ateo recorded under SectM the Code of Criminal Prooedure in which, he denied the| levelled agatnst him and pleaded innocence. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is ^hat ie accused/appellant has been falsely implicated by the just because he could not make the payment of dues| labourers. He submits that as the amount was not sanctioney Government, it was not possible for the accused/appellant Immediate payment as demanded by the complajnant. It further argued that there is no documentary evidence on prove the caste of the complainant as Scheduled Caste and| such document is sine qua non for brjnging home the offen^e 313 of charge comblainant to the Ibythe (o make hte been r^cord to fllingof withhi \. ^> t the provisions of this speeial Act speoially, when the caste of the complainant has been disputed by the accused/appellant. 5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, jt has been argued by Shri V. A. Goverdhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the State that the conviction of the accused/appellant ts strtetly in accordance with law. He however, does not dtepute the fact that there is no documentary evidence in respect of the caste of the complainant. Complainant Ramkrishna Miri (PW-1) in his court's statement has stated that on 19.07.1991 when he had approached the accused/appellant for demand of Rs. 81,270/-, it was sterted by the accused/appellant that the said amount has not been sancttoned by the Government. He further stated that the complalnant had asked the accused/appellant as to when the amount weuld come because the labourers are suffering and when he asked the accused/appellant to give the date in writing so that he can satisfy the labourers, then the accused/appellant had abused him by usir?g filthy language and also in the name of his caste. He has furth^r alleged that the accused/appellant also caught hold his oollar ar^d when he was about to assault him, Shobhit Ram Dhruw (PW-^) intervened in the matter. He has stated that he belongs to Meh^r Harijan caste whereas, the complainant is a Brahmin. Accordfng ^o the complainant, the incident had taken place tn the office of V^e accused/appellant and the said offfce is in the house of tljie accused/appellant in his verandah. Shobhit Ram Dhruw (PW-2) h^is supported the case of the complainant. A. Kujur (PW-3) is t^ie Investigating Officer. Vlnod Kumar (DW-1) and Rajendra Thal^ir (DW-2) have stated that on the date of inctelent, they were al^o present in the office of the accused/appellant and no such incid^nt had taken place. 6. The minute examination of the evidence makes it ctear that there is no document on record to show the caste of the comptain^nt -<s as Scheduled Caste which is sine qua non for bringing home the offence within the provisions of this special Act speciaHy, when the caste of the complainant has been disputed by the accused/appellant. In absence of any documentary evldence, it wilt not be safe for this Court to convtet the accused/appellant under the Act, 1989 and benefit of doubt js to be exlended to the accused/appellant. Accordingly, his convtetlon under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, 1989 is set aside. 7. Further considering the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out because of some dispute in respect of the payment of the labourers to be made. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses if compared with the defence witnesses, do not inspire the confldence of this Court and accordjngly, by giving benefit of doubt, the accused/appellant is atso acquitted under Section 294 of IPC. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge