CRgMINAL Ami AL wDER SEcTiogLsm (2) OF THE CODE 0F" CRImNAL PROCEDUaE. i IN‘THE 1mm c0331" oF‘Jmj’IcAmm Ar JABALPUR M: ' ’n. 213k CRIMIML Ai‘hiiAL E‘TO. _ ~~~~~~ 01557996. AE?ELLAAE ( IN JAIL) JAGDISJH YitDELV, r f Son of'Thakur Frasad Yadav, aged aboutk48wyears, resident of Village— Vijalhawa Ly r Sh ." i."mig3 v (EUNIA) P.S.Kam;a$hwarpuf. ‘ , _ _/ .. $J~¢ca§c ”1:” g Dlstrlc’c . . Sarguga MJ‘ v r l m; . ‘m/g h ‘VERsls RESEONDE NT « : : CPI-LE STATE OE M.P . Throdgh P.S.?Kamleshwarpur, Distéz Sarguj HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakery g Criminal Appeai No. 2294 oi‘1996 APPELLANT Jagdish Yadav i in Jail ' ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENT State of M.P. r ‘P‘resent: Smt Hameeda Siddiqui, counsel for the appeHant. Shri Akhil Mishra, Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT ‘ i (22.96.2011 The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.12.1996 passed by Special Judge, Arribikapur, Surguja in Speciai Case No.32/95 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 294 and 506-” of IPCV and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 imposing fine of Rs.IOO/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.l. for 15 days under Section 294 of IPC, to pay fine of Rs.300/—, in default of payment of fine to undergo SJ. for one month under Section 506-ll of IPC and to undergo R.l. for four years under 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (henceforth ‘the Act’). a as 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.01 .1995, written report EXP-1 was registered by complainant Suleman (PW-1) alleging in it that on 26.01 .1995, when he had gone to Primary School, Dijiahwa for flag hoisting, the accused/appellant reached there and started abusing himgusing filthy language. He has further alleged that he was also abused in‘the name of his caste. Based on this written report, F.l.R. EXP—2 was registered against the accused/appellant on 28.01.1995 under Sections 294 and 506-il IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. After investigation, challan was filed on 01 .03.1995 under Sections 294 and 506-" and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 3. So as to prove the guilt ofthe accused/appellant, prosecution has examined 4 witnesses, whereas three defence witnesses namely Bhagwan Das (OW-1), Girdhari Prasad Yadav (DW-2)— Teachers and Jagmohan ~(DW-3)-Peon have been examined by the accused/appellant. Statement of the accused/appeilant was also a *recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence‘and false implication in the case. 4. After‘ hearing the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. She submits that defence witnesses including two teachers and one peon of the School have not supported the prosecution case. She further submits that no documentary evidence has been filed by the prosecution showing the caste of the complainant and in absence of any such documentary and other legally admissible evidence to this effect, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under the provisions of the Said Act. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the State that the factum of the case is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He fairly submits that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the caste of the complainant. a ‘:¢<\ Complainant Suleman (PW-1) in his Court statement has stated that he is the Sarpanch of Village Kunia and on the date of incident i.e. on 26.01.1995, he had gone to the School of Village 7. \ Dijlahwa for flag hoisting, the accused/appellant reached there and started abusing him in the name of his mother and'his caste. He has stated that the accused/appellant called him ‘majhi adivasi’ and had further asked him that since last 15 years it was he, who was hoisting the fiag. It is also alleged by complainant Suleman (PW-1) that the accused/appellant had asked him that if his name is not included in the official record within 6 months, the complainant would i be removed from the Post of Sarpanch and that he would be beaten by him. He has further alleged that when Amar Bhagat (PW-2) tried to intervene, the accused/appellant made an attempt to assault him by picking up the chair. The accused/appellant is also stated to 1 have beaten the complainant. rHe stated that had Amar Bhagat (PW-2) was not present there, his life would have been under threat. ln cross examination, he has admitted the fact that earlier also, he had lodged a report against the accused/appellant in Harijan Police ' Station in which, the son of the accused/appellant has also been made accused. He has admitted the fact that the word “sale majhi" has not been mentioned in the written report Ex.P-1, but he could not tell the reason as to why the same has not been mentioned. Amar Bhagat (PW.2) while supporting the prosecution case, has , stated that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant had asked ‘ the complainant to get his name recorded in the official record, otherwise, he would be removed from the said post within 6 months. He has further stated that the accused/appellantacalled complainant Suleman (PW-1) “sale majhi" and threatened-him also. He has further stated that he was even abused by the accused/appellant and beaten with shoes. Birjhu Singh (PW-3)-Head Constable received the written report Ex.P-1 and based on that, F.l.R. EXP-2 was registered by him. Kumbhkarn Rajwade (PW—4) is the Investigating Officer, who prepared the spot mapvvide Ex.P-4 and ‘ recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. 8. Bhagwan Das (DW-1) in his Court statement has stated that on the date‘of incident, he was in charge Head Master of the School, flag hoisting was done by complainant Suleman (PW-1) and no such incident had taken place in his absence. Girdhari Prasad Yadav " , (DW-2), teacher of the Schol, has lso made simil statement as has been mad by Bhagwan Das (DW-1) and Jagmohan (DW-3)- Peon o the School has also stated that no such incident had taken place in the School. 9. The minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that there is no documentary‘ videnc on record to show that the complainant elongs to Scheduled Tribe community. For bringing he proving of such ocument i sine qua non and in absence of the same, the accused/appellant cannot e convicted under the provisions :of the said Act especially when the case of the complainan has not been admitted by the accused/appellant. Furthermore, the evidence in respect of the abe in the nam of the caste is not very conclusive and based on the same, in particular, the statement of complainant Suleman (PW-1) where he has stated that earlier also, he lodged a report against the accused/appellant before Harijan Police Station, it ll not be safe for this .Court om the offence within the provisions of the said Act, filing and V wi to convict the accused/appellant under Section 3(1)(x of the Act. That apart, even the defce witnesses namely Bhagwan Das (DW-l), Girdhari Prasad Yadav (DW-2)-Teachers and Jagohan (DW-3)- Peon of the chool have also denied the factum of any such incident and therefore, the accused/appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt and the same is extended to him. w‘!‘ 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Court below is set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. As the accused/appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. ““1“ Pritinker Diwaker Judge ., Sd/_ d l Priya o a ar e f ee b d s b a t us e ) en m S