e^Si^ <&•(- "^v-a? CFoooobsmi A,y.e eencn llrKiii2i' IN THE.HIGH COORT OF ,3UDICATURE_AT jAB&LPURsM.P. Criminsl ApQeal No.'*7 ^'6 of 1997. i^<3r _ APPELL&N'rs Chhatrapal |t Kaliya .s/o "f ,B&sant Ba.mai?' Rajpoot, sged ir yi9S.rs, r/o Pirda. P.S. l'Iandir Hassud, Qistt. Raipur,(H.P.) • *f»uwi*wi *»w»<i(»ant<» itMN «••*»••WuN**»)t VS. '-^^ &>Alt RESPONDEN-: State of H.P, 3 (1) (11) schedn.ie cast and Se'aedule Tribe &ct 1989. SEHTENCS SE ?IHE 6 mon-fchs R.I. and fine of Es.500/- > ^ t-4 (f^ 6v. CRIMIN&L APPSAL UHOER SEG2ION 374(2) OF THE CODE OE CRIMINAL PROC_EBURE. '. / l.i9K" HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTXS6ARH AT BILASPUI (Hon. Mr. Criminai Pritlnker Diwaker) No. 788 Qf 1997 Chhatrapal @ Kaliya VERSUS ".I* itate Shrj Santosh Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Shri Niraj Mehta, PLforthe State. The present appea! arises out of the judgment and order dated 01.03.1997 passed by Spedal Judge, Raipur in Specia) Criminai CaSe No. 122 of 1996 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1) (xl) of the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Preventlon of Atroatjes) Act and sentencing 'him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500, )n default of payment of fine to further undergo sjmple ^mpnsonment for three months, 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.1993, FIR Ex.P- 1 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1), a mar.ried lady aged sbout 26 yeati alleging irs it that on the date of fncident/ after faking bath; when she reached near the house of the appellant, h'e caught hotd of her nand, begsn to drag towards h!s house and upon protested by her, she was oeaten by the appejlant, Base^on this FIR.. offence under Sections 354, 323 and 294 of IPC wBsregistered against the appetlant. After coropletion ;of investigatlon, Challan was ftled on 30.09,1993 fer the offence under Sections 354, 323, 294/34 of IPC and 3 ^'i J-'^/ ^^ -2-- of the Scheduted Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) present appellant and hjs father Basa Court belov^ framed (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the and Scheduted Tribes 'the Act') against the 'nt Kumar wnereas tha under Sections 3 (l) Iso reco.rded under sedion two (DW-2) of its So as to hold the accused/apfix has examined 07 witnesses in gupport of jts case. Statements of the accused/appeliants were 313 of the Code of Criminal the charges levefled against and fatse impiication in the witnesses namely Pyarelal ,(DW- have also been examined case, 4, After hearing the parties th' the co-accused~'Basant Kumar of him whereas the present appet of the offence under Section 3 and sentenced for the offence Act, hence, the present appeal. Heard. counsel for the parties and perused tne material avaitable cn record including the jucigment impugned. 6. Contention/of Shri Bharat, learned counsel for the lant is thA oh- account csf previous enmity the appellant has been fals^ly implicated. Me submits that the statement of the prosecutrlx' is totally unreliabte because initially she has not made any allggation agalnst the father of the appellant however subsequently |3y jmproving her versior^ in her court stgtement she ..has also made altegation against Wm. He submits that no ca.ste certificate whatsoever has beeh fited by the prosacuBsn tfi ersve the easte sfthe eomolainant which is is trial Court has acquit the charges levetted against though has been acquitted (x) of the Act but convicted Section 3 (1) (xi) of the "% y / ^^' ,^' ^ sine-qua-non for provssions of the said Act, especially when the caste of the I! :ate 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment jt has been argued by the le< impugned judgment is strictl there is no infirmity in the^same. .1" "t* with law an< e Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her evldence has stated that on the date of incldent when she was going towartis the viila! pond/, the accused/appellant who was comlng from ths opposite side abused in the name of her mother and the.o also abused him. However after^etting down frpm his the appellant had beaten her, draggqd her into his house and called his father Basant'Kumar who also abused her by usiro filthy language and also by calling her 'Chamarin'. hearing cries raised by her when Raj Kumar, Pltamber Chandrashekher came there, she could be rescued. She h< stated that the acquitted accused Basant Kumar hact lodged report against her husband for committing rape on his wlfe but this report is totally faise, She has stated that whi todging the FIR she. had dlsclosed to the Potice that appetlant and his father had called her 'Ctemar/n' and if same is not recorded in the FIR she could not tei) the as e In cross-examination she h.as stated that the matter was atso / ~ intervened/by.Kamla and Sohga who are her sisters-in-law. 9. KulhKawadi (PW-2) has Chandrashekhar and Pitambe saw a quarrel-'near the house him the appellant was holdinc interven.ed the matter. He were hurling abuses to each stated that when he aiono wlth of the appellant, According to hand of the prosecutrix a.nd he has stated that both the parties he cannot tetl as to -t, (^) -H- what abuses were huried by them. Kamla Bai (PW-3) has stated that upon hearing cries of the prosecutrix when she reached on the spot,.saw three boys settting the quarrel between the prosecutrix and the appeljant. Sphaga Bai (PW- 4) ftas not supported the prosecutson case and turned hostile. G. M. Tiwari (PW-5)/ the Assistant Sub Inspector had recorded the FIR Ex. P-1. Mad.ru (PW-6), the husband of the prosecutrix has stated that after reaching home the prosecutrix had informed hlm about the entire incident. He has admitted the fact that no caste certjficate whatsoever nas been fiied. Dr, Krlpashanka.r Raj (PW-7) who had medjcal) examined the prosecutrix found some scratch marks on her Minute examination of the evidenee makes it clear that on the date of incfdent there may be some dispufce between the parties_byt while iodging the FIR the prosecutrix has not made any allegatlon against the father of the appellant whereas improving her version in her court statement she has made allegation against him. Record further reflects that there was some previous dispute between the parties and therefore possibility of fajse implication cannot be ruted out. Most importantly the prosecutrix in her Court statement has not deposed that the appellant had msde any effort to outrage her modesty. That apart, admittediy there is no document qn record to show the caste of the complainant and filing of such document is sine qua non to bring home ttie offence under the special provisionsespedatly when the caste is rtisputed by theappellant, therefore It wlil not be safe for this Court tocepnvict the appeliant under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act and that being so benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appetlant. "'-(.- ^ -5'- tl In the result, the appeal is allowed. impugned judgment dated 01.03,1997 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge leveiled against him. Appetlant is on baii. Bail bonds so furnished stand discharoed, _-—-— ^ Pritmker Diwaker Judge -. /