an TE \ ‘.$§§; F E>E ...... . ‘l\glBH ‘ (‘J IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ju ATuRE OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.A. No. gf'I/Jzooe, W KUSHAL SINGH NAIK S/O SHOBHA SINGH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RIO. VILLAG & P.S. MARDUM, DISTT. BASTAR VERSUS ES$5KDENTM9{LW STATE OF CHHAT'TISGARH THROUGH PS. AZAK, JAGDALPUR / APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374§)/0F THE CODE OF cruwNAL EEOCEDURE E R GH CHGARH AT BIL (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminai Appeal No. 812 of 2003 Kushl h Naik - State of Chhattisgarh. Shri j Pranj l or the appellant. mt. Smi PL o the sondent/State. . OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (31.01.2011) s appa is direc agai the jument dated 11.7.2003 sd by the ca ue Jaglpur (star) in Sessions Trial No. 7/200 itg th ccused/ppelnt under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Caste d Scheduled Trib (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and snting him to udergo rigou ipisonment for one year an eenc n ors mr d pay fine o . 1000 default f payment of fine to further undergo rgorus impriom ts 2. Ce of the recution in brief is tht on the basis of written complaint dated 11.9.2002 (Ex. P-3), FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/appellant on 2.10.2002 alleging that on 7.9.2002 at about 10 a.m. he had abused and intimidated the complainant namely Litiram Mandavi (PW-4). The reason for the accused/appellant abusing the complainant is said to have been some money transaction between them. After investigation chaiian was filed on 17.11.2002 for the offences under Sections 294, 506-B IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses in support ,of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of m f Rs in o io snent for three monh. as pos a HI COURT OF HATTIS ASPUR a Sing APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Mano aape counse f S ta Ghai fr rep Thi el ted nst dg pase Speil Jdg da Ba 03 convcin e aala Scheduled an e #2.— Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges Ievelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appeilant of the charges under sections 294 and 506-B IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. During trial the complainant and the accused/appellant had filed an application under Section 320 (2) IPC for permission to compromise the matter which was allowed on 30.6.2003 and as a result cf which the accused/appellant .has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 and 506-B IPC but as the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not compoundable in nature, he has been convicted for the said offence. 7. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the incident had taken place on 7.9.2002 whereas the written complaint was made on 11.9.2002 and this inordinate delay in doing so has not been properly explained by the prosecution. He submits that the accused/appellant has been dragged in a false case for the reason that he had made certain complaint against the complainant who was working as Forest Guard. He submits that on account of complaint being made by the accused/appellant, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the department against the complainant and for this sole reason nurturing ill—will he has implicated him in a false case. He submits that even ifthe entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted thereto as the accused/appellant had not abused the complainant in the name of his caste. 8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned. (V I. lg .11; w. m A ._§_ 9. Litiram Mandavi (PW-4) — the complainant in the case in hand, has stated that on the date of incident at about 9-10 a.m. he was going to his 'workplace and when in the weekly market he was taking tea along with the police inspector, accused/appellant came there, started abusing him in the name of his caste, made an attempt to beat him and when he started to disappear from the scene, he had hurled the shoe at him. According to this witness, Kiran Guruji, Dr. Balram and the Police Inspector D.R. Singh who were already present there had intervened in the matter. In cross examination this witness has stated that he had already tiled an application for compromising the matter and that he and the accused/appellant are the employees of the same department. According to this witness, there was some money dispute between them. In paragraph 5 of his cross examination he has stated that as a result of the complaint made by the accused/appellant to the superior officer, he is facing a departmental enquiry and since then ill— will against him was breeding in his mind. K.K. Chandravanshi (PW-1) is the witness who had issued caste certificate Ex. P-1 to the complainant. Sub Inspector - D.S. Thakur (PW—2) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant had abused the complainant and after his intervention the matter was pacified. He admits that complainant and the accused/appellant had informed him that there was some money dispute between them. He also admits that no entry was made by him in the Rojnamcha Sanha. t Sub Inspector - K.R. Khande (PW-3) is the witness who had registered the FIR and done preliminary investigation. This witness also admits that during enquiry he found that there was some old money dispute between the accused and the complainant. Constable - Girdharilal (PW-5) has stated that he had heard abuses between the , accused/appellant and the complainant but he had not intervened in the matter. Dr. Balram Kashyap (DW—1) has stated that there was se mo dispute betwen the cud nd the cplaint i om ney e acse a omna and t _q_ abuses being hurled by the accused/appellant in thename of the caste of the complainant. 10. After thus going through the material available on record particularly the statements of the witnesses what comes out is that there was some old money dispute between the accused/appellant and the complainant. Record also shows that the accused/appellant and the complainant are the employees of the same department and on one occasion the accused/appellant had made some complaint against the complainant to his department which stretched upto the initiation of dprl preeigs ait i keing ll thi d, possibility o false iliction f t aced te a of cmplaint cannot be rul out thi c. urtherre, th colainant hilf h not be nsist while aking h stt beoe the Court a sewhe he suppors t se o psecution and soeere he ni the sa. At f , inordinate delay i mking t writn complait h n e satisfactorily plined by e prosecion. hus in View f such inoste sttemen f the coplainnt and keepin in mid the act that no specific allegion has been made by a the itnesse ait the accued/apellat tha h abud the cplit i e name o his cae it intnt to iult r humlia im, it wil t be a for this urt to maintin h cvition under ecti 3 ( ( sfe Co a is onc Son 1) x) of h huld Cast an Scduled rib (Previo f Aities) te Scede e d he Te entn o troc Act. This art, complainant has.ditted in hi videnc that erl h h made an apicati for ompromiing the tr b s t n uer th spil povion is t comundabl in natre h be n e me ou s es f e ame a e g c er ect B 11. In th sult, apel i allowed. Judgmnt iud is hereby et aside. Accused/apelt is acqed o the crg lled aainst him. .the ed/apllant lrey on bil, his bail bos stad dihrged. ap am s ee aier e ad plon cs mate ut a he offece nd is eca ris no poe u, e has en covicted for th sa, thgh a a rult o th s appliction h ot his acquittal of the harges und Sions 294 and 506- IPC. » e re the pa s e mpgne s plan uitt f hae evel g As accuspe is aad a nd n sca eatmenta ocdn agns hm and ep a s in min f mpa o he cus at h hnds the ona ed in s ase Fmo e mp mse as en coten m is atemen fr s omre t he ca f ro mwh dees me par rom this the n a he te n as ot ben exa th ut T o cnsint at o ma g n f at ny of ws gans spn t e se omanan n th f st wh e ns o ite h l no