;\-V%.%,-v.X.~^.- -^. '-"••^.d:j '-) ^j^ II SHS HIGH GOUBT OF MADHZA PBADSSH AT 3"AMLPUB Grimiaal AppQal So. 4 C3>. of 1996 .iPPU.GjyiS : Purshoftam Agrawal s/o ^hyamial AgrawaF aged aboat 31 years^B/O ^havarpur, Police •i'i"-~" Statioa Basaaa, Distt.Baipur ^ TOB.SUS CF0000060864 HON-APPLIG^S Be spoadent /d-ba-bs of M-P« through Polics Station Basana, Distt. Eaipur ft}. OONnCSION U/S 3(x) Ibs Schsdalsd Gastes aad Ihs Scteduled Tribes^ (?re.ventiori of Atroci.tiQs) Act,t%9 'for'6 month_ aad Fiae of Rs. 500/- ftl APPBAL U/S 374 O? GOD® OF OBIMIIAL pROOBDmS .s^ <^. A? HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILABPUR ^ . SB:HQirBLBMR,JU8TICBPmTiNKBRDXWASC^ CR.A.NO. 663/1996 APPBLLANT RB8PONDBNT versus Purashottani Agrawal StateofM.P. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel ft>r the appeUant. Shri Ashisli Gupta, P,L, for fhe State, APPBAL U/S 374(21 OP THB CRIMIMAL PROCBDURB CSQD& JUDGMBNT (08.04.2011) The present appeal arises oiit of fhe judgment & order dated 29.03.96 passed by the Special Judge, Raipiir ia Special Case No, 124/96 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Caste 85 Scheduled Tribe (Prcvention ofAtrocities) Act (ia short <fhe Act) aad sentencmg hitn to undergo rigorous miprisonineat for six monfhs aad to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payiaent of fibie to furfher uxidex^o simple iEiiprisoiunent for three icionfhs. 2. Case of fhe prosecution ia brief is that on 9,12,91 a written report (Ex,P/2) was lodged by Prcm Smgli (P.W,-2) aUeging fhat on 8,12.91, piirsuaat to fhe order of Maadi Secretery, Basna wfaen he was retuumijig after putting barder, on ffae way he xnet fhe accused/appeUant to whom he iaformed fhat he has piit barrier on fhe said place whereupon the accused/appeUant started abusirxg him by usiiig filfhy language and by calling him Adivcsjsi It is also alleged fhat as he is an Adwasi he was misulted by the accused/appellaat Based on this written report, on 9.12.91 itself FIR (Ex.P/5) was registered against the accused/appeUant under Section 353, 294 IPC & Section 3 (l)(x) ofthe Act. After iavestigationy chaUan was filed on 1.1.92 under Section 3 (1)(^ offhe Act. 3. In order to estabUsh the guilt of fhe accused, ttie proseciitioii has exaxxuned five witaesses. One defence witaess has also beeii exainined, Statexxient of the accused/appellaat was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. ia which he dexiied the charges leveUed agamst him and pleaded his ianocence and false implication in fhe case. 4. After hearmg coiinsel for fhe parties, fhe trial Court has convfcted and sentenced fhe accused/appeUant for the offeiice as xaentioned above» Hence fhis appeal, 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perased the material available on record iiicludiag ffae impttgned jiidgment 6. Contention of Shri Safau, counsel for the appeUant is fhat BO document whatsoever has been filed by fhe prosecution to estabUsh fhe caste of fhe coniplaiaant aad filfaig of such documeiit is a sine qua nan for proviag fhe case under fhe provisioBs of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act aod even otherwise as per fhe allegation of tfae coiaiplamanty fhe accused/appdtoat called ffcie coixiplaiiiant as AdK^asraad therefore the provisions ofthe said Act is not attracted, 7, On the other hand, supportmg fhe inipugned jiidgmeut it lias been argued by the State coimsel fhat present is not a case where fhe coiciplaiiiaiit was only called Adivaai but if fhe entire complaint is taken as it iSy it is clear fhat he was iatentionally caUed Adwasfjust because he belongs to a lower caste, He however does iiot dispute fhat there is no dociiaient on record to estabBsh the caste of the complainant. 8. Biharlal Aditya (P.W.-l) is fhe Patwari who prepared the spot map (Ex,P/1). Prcm Siagh Bariha (P,W.-2) - complainaat m his court statement has stated that at fhe relevaat time he was working as peon ui the Krishi Upaj Mmidi Samitiy Basna. He has stated that by caste he is Bariha which comes under fhe Schediiled Tribe category ^^g®ss^. ^^""\ ^^%^ 't y/ %, " I ^.. "^^ ^- - "^..,,..x*^' ; and on the date of iacident after puttmg flie barrier ijai fhe Krishi Upaj Maadi, when he was retiinuxig, on tihie way he met fhe accused/appellaot to whom he infonned fhat he has put barrier on fhe said place whereupon the accused/appeUant started abusiiig faim by using filfhy laaguage aad by caUmg Adivasi He has stated fhat he iminediately mformed his superior olB&cer about the act of fhe accused/appeUaat aad ftien fhe report was lodged, He has admitted the fact that prior to the date of iiicident fhere was some dispute between hiixi and tfae accused/appeUant regardiag mancfftax. Bhagwat Prasad Sonkar (P,W»-3) at ftxe relCTrant ttoe was working as Inspector m the Krtebi Upaj Maadi Samiti, Basna has stated that he was informed by the complamaat aboiit his dispixte withi fhe accused/appellant S,R.Pathare (P,W,-4)- Siib Inspector has stated that he received the written report (Ex.P/2) froxa fhe complamaBt aiid based on that fhe PIR (Bx.P/5) came to be lodged. Chainra Sahu (P.W.-5) at fhe relevant time was workmg as Check post guard in fhe Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Basna has iiot siipported fhe prosecution case and has been declared hostUe. Kailash Chand Sahu (D.W.-l) ia his court statexaent has stated fhat on 9.12.91 he was working as Secretaiy of the Krisbi Upa| Maadiy Basna and on fhe said date he received a complaint jBrom fhe accused/appellant agaiast fhe complamaat Prem Singli making various allegations against hmi. 9. Minute exaiamation of fhe evidence makes it clear fhat there is absolutely no evidence on record to show Oie caste of the coxnplamant which is a sine qua non for proving fhe case under the provisions of fhe said Act specialty when fhe acx^used/appellant has not admitted fhe caste crfthe complainant. Furfhermore, the evidence also reflects that fhere was sosne dispute between the accused/appeUant aad fhe coniplaiaant and on 9.12.91 accused/appeUaatalso xnade a coinplaiat agmnst the complaioant The evidence adduced by fhe prosecution is not very cliiiohiag aad trustworthy on which basis conviction of the accused/appeUaat caa be upheld. Even fhe iavestigating ojKcer has not beeii examiiied «•:i-...-,^^ | %,... ~^y ^.AES3^' 10. Considering fhe overaU evidencey fhis Coiirt is oftlie view tltat on fhe basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution it will not be safe for ftds Court to uphold the conviction ofthe accused/appellaat under Section 3 (l)(x) of fhe said Act aiid tiiat bemg sOy benefit of doubt is to be extended to fhe accused/appeUanfc 11. In fhe resiilt, the appeal auccecds and is allowed. The iaipugned judgmeitt of tfae Court below coiivicting aiid sentencmg tfae accused/appeUaat under Section 3 (l)(x) ofthe said Act is set aside, The accused/appeUaat is acquitted of fhe charges leveUed agamst fheni. As fhe accused/appellaat is rcported to be on bail» his bail bonds staad discharged, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge k