‘ § This appeal is directed agamst the judgment dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Adaitionai Sessions Judge Khairagarh Camp Kawardha in speciai Session Tn‘ai No, 72191 convicting the accuseél appellant for the oEence punishable under Sections 341 35 324 ofthe IPC and under Section 3(1) (10} oft31e Scheduled Caste 8r, Scheduled Tribe (Preventioa of Atrocities) Act and senteucing him to undergo simpie imprisonment for two months aad to pay fine of Rs 300 to undergo smmle impmsonment for stx months and to ; pav hne of Rs 700 to undergo Simple unpnsonment for one year and to pay tme of Rs. 1,000, m detaulfof fme to further undergo simple imprisonment for one 'month; two months a’nd three months, respectively. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , ‘i SB ‘: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRH‘INKER DIWAKER __._._.,_.__... g Shri Ravindra Agrawal, couilsei fer the aypellant. . Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for the State. £APPLICATION UIS 3'74 OF THE CKEC. }) JuDGMENT (12.03.201op 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.8.91, FIR EXP/3 was lodged by complainant Ram Avtar (P.W.-2) alleging in it that‘on the same day at about 8.30 am when he had gone to cut the tree standing near the river the accusedjappellant reached there abused hnn by savmg that the sald tree belongs to him Thereafter the appellant had asked the comp1a1nant to accompany h1m to the pohce station for the redreSsal of the dispute. It is also alleged that there was some dispute between them as to what muteis to CR.A.N0. 501i 1992 APPELLANT Dhelau (a) Saxiat Kumar versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh be followed for reaching th€ police station and on account of the said dispute the appellant took the axe fmm the complainant and gave him a Single blow on his right “Hist as a resul: ofwhich he had sim‘ered injury. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused] appellant was also meorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false imphcauon 1n the case After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has comicted and sentenced the accdsedfappellant for the oifence a‘s mentioned above. Hencethis appeal. 5. Contention of the counsel for the anpellant is that as the prosecution has failed to file any document in respect of the caste of the complaint and, even the complainant had not stated has to he belongs to which caste, under no circumstances the appellant can be convicted under Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST {Prevention of Atrocities; Act. He submits that the appellant cannot be convicted for the otfence under Section 341 of the. Indian Penal Code because the complainant was never wrongfully restrained the appellant. ln respect of the oh‘ence under §ection 324 of the IPC it has been argued that simple injury is alleged to have been caused and this is mainly because there was some scufBe between the appellant and the complainant. He submits that ifvthis Court reaches to the conclusion to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC then looking to the fact that the appellant is now ”/M, aged about 8O years he be given the benefit of bection 4 of l V the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 . ' 6.- On the other hand; counsel for the State supports the l impugned judgment. 4. 7 . I have heard counsel for the parties and perused th€ material available on record includmg the judgment impugned. 8 . From the record, it is apparent that there is no r document on record to Show that the comphinant belongs to schedule caste, even in the Court statement the complainant has not stated that he belongs to the schedule caste. It is a settled legal position that the production o relevant document regarding the caste of the complainant is sine qua non to establish the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act. It. is thus verv clear that the onviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduléd Caste] Scheduled Tribe gPrevention of Atrocih'es) Act is not in accordance with law therefore the same is set aside. For convicting any person under Section 341 of the IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the said person has been retained wrongfully. Section 339 of the IPC reads as under: x “339. Wrongful restraint. -Whoever voluntarily. obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.” “ Explanation—the obstruction of"a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an od‘ence within the meaning of this section. 9. In the preshnt case, even as per, the case of the [n , l E complainant Ram Avtar: (P.W.2)_. the appellant has never voluntarily obstructed the complainant from going anywhere. This witness has merely stated that there was some dispute between the dam as to by which route they i have to g0 to the police station and the fact remains that 1D ultimately both of them reached the police station and then f c V ‘ RK. Bakshi the complainant has lodged tha mpcrt. :7‘rom thia maten'al availabla on rscord, the cmwiction bf the accusetij appellanz under Section 341 IPC cannot sustain and therefore he is 4 acquitted for the same. 10. So far as the offence under Secijon 324 of the IPC is concerned, compiainant Ram Ava’far (P.W.-2} has s‘rated that the accused/appellant had snatched his axe and has caused him injuqr on the Wrist of his right hand. Statement of this witness has been duly supported by the doctor (PAM-1) had the accused/aypellant (report EXP] 1) and has found one incised wound and one linear abrasion. After going through the evidence of the witnesses, this Court is' of the opinion that the conviction. under Section 324 of the IPC is in accordance with law. who examined 11. At this stage, counsel for the appeilant argues that the appellant is an old man aged about 80 years and is also present in the Court. He submits that looking to his pathetic condition, he be set free after imposing the tine amount alone. He submits that the appeliant has already deposited '700 and that should be held the fine amount of Rs. sumcient for his conviction. 12. Considering the totality of the fact. in particular looking to the age of the appellant; the fact Siat the incident had taken place about 19 years back, the submission as put forth by Shri Agiawal, appears to be reasonable. The jail sentence of the appellant is modified and in the light of fine amount of Rs. 700 deposited by the appellant, shall remain as it is. The appellant is not required to deposit any further - amount as he has‘been acquitted for the odence under » Section 341 of the IPQ: & 3(1}(10) of the Scheduled. Case] Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act. The tine amount deposited by the appellant in respect of these two offences be refunded to him. Sd/- l Pritinker Diwaker l Judge