IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT_JABALPUR Cr. Appeal No.\V\^g /97 Ghanshyam Sav(Teli) S/o Basudev Teli, Aged about 35 Yrs. K/o Gram Kapsakhunta, Police Station, Basna, Distt. Raipur APPELLANT Versus State of Kadhya Pradesb RESPONDENT CRIKINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) 5:E'~%E-55DS~5?~55SHTNS£~5R55S5S5E7T973 :lr .de r ,uJ m< ai r' 'S&s"y (.<' II ;:t: i U.J HI6H COUKT OF CHHATTTSSARH AT BILASPU? Single Bench : Hon'ble ffi.r. Justice Pritmker &i CriminGl Appea! No. 1448 of 1997 ©hanshyamSav (Teli) Versus RESPON&ENT State of AAadhya Pradesh (now C<5) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counse\ for the appellont. Shri Vaibhav A. Sovsrdhan, PL for the State/respondsnt. CRIMINAL -4PPEAL UN&ER SEGTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALJSROCE6URE This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order da-t-ed-30.6.1997 possed by Speciai Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Tria! No. 15/1996 convictirrgtheaccused/appeliant for the offence punishabie under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "thp Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous. imprisonment for sixmonths and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to; further undergo rigopQUs imprisonment for one month. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.4.1995 a written report (Ex.P-1) was iodged by the compiainant nomely Nirakar i(PW-l)[ i .: '- : ^ and some other vil!agers stoting thepein tKat on the same dc^ when| the vil'age meetirsg was going on, the acGUsed/appetlant reachsd thepe cmd had abused everyone present there <md Hjacl ^dsoi beaten him with slippeps- It is furthep aiieged that acquitted]i3|acyse;d .;.i':; Nandiat had fllso abused everyon®present in the meeting; |^ec! Qn this written , re^w^, Gehal-i'^aifsi'if . (Ex.P-5) was r'eeo»|'^ed' ,.on t6.4il995j an(i[l'hereQfter, ^I.ft. •(Ex.P-6) was registered,;,Qrt^t| |day undgi" Sec^ws •29^', sarae. 0'td 3Z3 of i+he Indian IPenat'fciGleic^ci ^2C~L N I o®1 /' Section 3(l)(x5 of the Act against the accused/appeilant and the other acquitted accused Nandial, .After usuat investigation, challan was filed by the police on 11.7.1995 for the scid offences. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecufion has examined as many as 7 w'tnesses in suppori' of its case. Statements of the accused persons u/ere also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charges levelied against them and pleaded their innocence and fdse implicdtion in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the tri.ai Court has acquitted t'he accused Nandlai for ai! the offences whereas accused/dppellant Ghanshyom though' hds been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506 Bend 323 of the Indian Pena! Code, he hos been convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. l-1ence thisappeal. ' 5. Heard counse! for the parties ond perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appeilant submits that except complainoint namety Nirakar (PW-l),none of the eye witnesses to the incident has suppprted the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the entir® statement of the compiaincmt is doubtful.He further submits that| prosecution has fai'ed to file ony documentar'y evidence showsng thBi caste of the coropiainwt i.e. '5o?tew/'which is sine qua non f<ip[ bringing home the offence under the^prQyisions of the Special AcS' especially when the caste of the cpmpiairiant has been disputad'b^ the accused/appeljcBit. l-1e aiso submits that there are ;ma*eri^! discrepaneies in the written report,and the court statemerat; of fh®| compiainant NaraNar (PW-1). He fupfher submits that when on th< p !^- 1)1 1!: 11111 it'-+~"<T® li- !K t»l i:BI t-/ ^p-" basis of so.me set of eyidence other accused Nandlat has already been acquitted by th.e court' below, under no circumstances the accused/appellants can be convicted for the said offence. 7. On th.e other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the. impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. Compiainmt Narakar (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that he was a panch of viltage Kapsakhoota at the relevOTit time and the accused persons are also the resident of same viitage and they are 7e//by caste. According to him, in the yeor 1985 he was ousted by the viliagers and when he became P.anch of the viilage, he a+tended the meeting and in the said meeting the viliagers were collecting donation of Rs. 10/- from each persons, at that moment the accused/appella^t ffhanshyam called him 'chamra' saying that as to who had called him in the meeting and, thereafter, he wce assautted by him with siippers. H.e has further stated that he was subjected to abusive lcmguage by the accused/appeilant and thsn acquitted accused Nandtal had also abused him in the name of his caste. Eye witnesses to the incident namely Bhamt (PW-2), Basan (PW-3) and Ramial (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case and they were declar'ed hostiie." Rusi Ram Sao (PW-5) hasstated ini his evidence that he has not seen the incident, but was informed! about the same. Hecud Constabte Ayodhya Prasad Patel (PW-7) is ths| witness who hcis done part of investigation. Retired Sub Inspectori B.L Shrivas (PW-6) is the Investigating Officer who has supportedl thecaseoftheprosecution. 1 ! • : 9. AAinute examination of the evidence of the compiainaiit ^akes jt ciear that there are materia! contr'adictions in his court stflfrement flul.iyii.LAiuJiiiiiiB . . ...s^^"^^ |;t;^;i'|i^.;'ji *•"-•' te ©4 from that of his previous statement and his written report' (Ex.P-1). Further, eye witnesses to the incident have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostite. Most important aspect of the case is that there is no documentary evidence on record to show the caste of the complainant as ^ff^now/which is sine qua none for bringing home the offence under the provisions of the Special Act especidly when the caste of the complainant has been disputed by the accused/appeilant. Furthermore, almost on the same set of evidence other co-accused Nandlal has already been acquitted by the court below. 10. After going throu9h the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the prosecution has utterly failed to establlsh its case by teading cogent and clinching svidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused/appellant. Accopdingly, the appeal is aliowed. Impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appeHant is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appeilant is reported to be on bail, bail bond furnished by h.im stands discharged. U..1,. Sdl- pritinker Diwaker