H/ gm g/Fglo/gglllll/Ili 8927 /: . «vm 2 n%“’§‘7&~ b‘(€rimi»a QF MAQHYA<PRABESH A;>SJABALFU. CrcAppEal NO.C¥Fa /19§2. . c o ' “ IN THE HIGH CO aag&aua&& itaram Behri, aged aboUt 31 ear$, s f Sébdev Kolta, Residént oPGram Baghadala‘Fu1ice Statia Pusau, natrict Raigarh (m.p.). E y on o r, n r i , Versus EspQNDEmT R 3 ‘Tha stats or M E. thraugh p,a.puéaur (m.P:). District Raigarh, CRIMINAL AppEAL UNDER SECTIQN 37412) OF THE pancEuum: 197g. caaE or CRImiA' Mt CDNVIETIDN ’SENTEMCE V'u»..»fn~W_V~_A_ r g W i J “ " . ..:. ‘ v V K: ;‘ .............. ....... ......... @ § u R % U , ‘ ‘ A (£9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILA$PUR Singh Bench : Han'ble Mr, Jusfice Pritlnker-Diwakar Criminal Appeai No, 649 of 1992 APPELLANT ' Simmm Dehri Varsus RESPONDENT 5mm af Madhya Pradesh (new Ch'ha'r‘risgurh) Shri Rajkumar' Gupta, counsel far- The appeJianT. Shri Pravin Dos Dv é A for fhe STm‘e/r‘esnondem CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3/4 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIW‘INAL WOCEDURE 1.x 'JUDGMENT (26.03.2010) This appeal is directed againsf The impugned, judgmem‘ da’red 23.6.1992 passed by Spacia! Judge, Raig‘ar'h in Special case No. 54/1991 canvicfing *he accused/appellant far the. affance punishablg under- Section 3 (1} (xi) 9f thg 5cheduigd. Cas’re é: Scheduled Tribe (Pr-evemion of Afrocifies) Act and sentencing him fa rigorous imprisonmeni for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/—, in defaui’r 9f paymani 0f fine i0 furfher' undergo rigorous imprisonment for iwo monihs. a, Brief foois of tho oo5e org Tho? on 1445,1991 FIR (Ex‘P- 3) was iodged by compiainom Bundeii (PW-1) uiiaging in if that occused/appeiiem‘ hed assaulted her by his sleepers; After . ‘invesfigmion, challon was filed for i'he offence under Secfions i Z94; 506(3), 323 of fhe Indian Penal Codg and Section 3 (i)(x) i of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Triba (Prevaniion of { ATrociTies) Act. However, charges were fromegi againef The i accused/appeiian? for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x)(xi) of ’rhe Scheduled Caste d Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of ATroeiTies) Act and under Seciion 506-3 of fhe Indian Penqi / ‘ i i i Code read with Secfion 3 (1) (xv) 0f the Schadukd CQs’re 6: Scheduled Tribe (Prevem‘ien of Atracities) Ac’r. - 3. Sc as To hoki To accused/appeliam guilty, pmsecm‘ion has examined gs many as é wifngssgs in supper? of H3 case: Smtement of The accused/appeiiant was (zlso recarded under Sggtian 31.3 9f Thg Qigda ef criminal Prmedure in which ha denied The charges ieve!!ed againsf him and pleaded his innocence and false impllcefidn in The cadet This apart wiTneeses namely Pur‘nachcmd Dehr'i (DW-l) d: Baldeo Ham (DW—Z) have also been examined by The defence in support 0f , iTs case. 4. AfTer‘ hedr'ing The parties The Trial Gaunt as acquiTTed The accused/appellanT of The effence punishable under- SecTian 506 (B) of The Indian Penal Code and SecTion 3 (1) (x) d: 3 (1) (xv) of The Scheduled CasTe 6: Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of ATrociTies) ACT but convicTed and senTenced him fer The offence punishable under Seefian 3 (1) (xi) of The Scheduled CasTe d: Scheduled Tribe (PrevenTion of ATrociTiee) ACT. Hence This appeal. 5. Heard counsel for The parTies and perused The maTeriall available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for The appellanT submiTs ThaT presenT is a case " where reporT has been lodged afTer an inordinate delay. He 1 submiTs ThaT wriTTen reporT has been lodged on 53,1991 whereas on The basis of Thie- wriTTen report FIR was regisTered on 14.5.1991, This inordinaTe delay in lodging The FIR has also noT been saTiofacTorily explained by The complainanT. He furTher submiTs ThaT There is no document available on record showing The facT ThaT The complainanT l l s h @ belongs to Scheduled Caste. He. submifs that in absence of any such doCument, under no sfrefch af imaginafion, The accused/appelianf can be canvic’red for The offence under Sectian 3 (1) (xi) of The Scheduled Casfa (S; Scheduled Tribe (Preveni'ion cf Atmsifies) Act Hg also submits Thm Thereur'e material mntmdicfions and omissions in the statement cf The witnesses. 7. On ihe other- hund, ceunsei for the State submits that impugned judgment is in acccrdance with law. He however admits that prosecution has not filed any document in respect of the caste of the complainant. 8. I have heard counsel for the partses and perused the I material available on record. 9. i Complainant Bundeli (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident, when she was going to Deepapara, on the way, just opposite to the house of Lalindro, accused/appellant met her and had assaulted her three times with the sleeper. She states that she was also abused by the accused/appellantby using filthy language: Complainant Bundeli in her court statement has not stated that she was beaten by the accused/appellant as she belongs to a particular caste. Even she has not given any t satisfactory explanation as to why the report has been lodged after an inordinate delay. 10. Admittedly the prosecution has not filed any document to show the caste of the complainant which is sine qua non for convicting any person in relation to the offence pertaining to the provision of Scheduled Caste d. Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is a settled legal poison that the production of relevant document regarding the caste of @9 *he complainmf is necessary To es‘mblish the offence under the provisions of Prgvgn‘rian of Atrocities Act. If is thus very clear That The conviction of The appeiiom under $eci’ion 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Costa d! Schoduied Tribe (Prevzntion‘ of Atrocities) ACT is not in accordance wii'h iow Therefore fhc ‘ some. is set osidc‘ Furthermore there is on inordinate deioy in lodging the'First Information Report and the reason for delayed FIR has also not been sotisfoctorily explained by the complainant 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 23.6.1992 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him“ He is on bail, his boil z bonds stand discharged, Sd/— l Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge l i l