c^\ ^^\ CF0000057731 18 IHE i®fia»'" L'?-:?lLl^ R.toD.g. Lft>-fl-q"1 ^f' 'f-t:: • ' ".i^ i^ :l;'s: GOOR2.0P MAEHT& PSABESH AT-jaBffi.pURd.i.P) Crlip.lnal Appsal So{^'5ff ^/^994 'K /- ' f-'MSS r'S!^ m;^; 1. pes Singh DewsRgan / S/o Gokal Dewangan, /' aged about 60 ysars, 2. Sa-n Bharosa'Dewapga-s, S/o Beo Slngh Dewa-sgaE, aged about 24 years, Both R/o-Viliage- Khanhar^a. •Police S^ation - Uta±, Di.stt. Dura (M.f) ei ??•.'••=-•s <•!; •i-^ •t^ V.li •^ ^ili'. fS: t State ofMadhya-Pradesh, » l"*' h;!1 .Case Bo.110/92. Special Judge, I3urg Convictioa U/s.3<l)<10) o f •the Scheduled Caste ^tad acheduled Tribes Athorita.e.s. Act. , Conviction t ^^lonfhs Simpie •'TOprisonment esch. RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:39:46 +0530 \0 •^^ HIGH CQURT OP CHHATTISCUWH ATBILASPUR 8B : HOITBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITIMK8R MWAKER CRA.MO. 13S8/1994 ust-as! APPBLIAMT RE8POMDEMT vetsus Deo Singh Dcwamgan & Another State ofMadhyaPisadesh Shri V.G.Tamaskar, cozmsel for the appellants. Shri Vlvek Shanna, P.L. for the State. APPLICATIOII U/S 374 (21 OF THB CR.P.C. JUDGMBNT (18.03.20l(q This appeal arises out af fhe judgment dated 07.10.1994 passed by fhe Special Jiidgc, Distt. Durg in. Special Case No. 110/1992 coavicting thc accused/appeUant for ftie offence pimishable uuder Section 3 (1) (x) ofthe Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Rreventioa of Atrocities) Act and sentcnclug them to undei^o Biiaple imprisoiunent for six inonths aad to pay finc of Rs. 50, in defaTilt of ftne simple unprisonmeat for sevea days. ^- 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3. 10.92 a written report dated EX.P/ 1 was lodged by the complamant Goutarhin Bai (P.W.-2) aUeging iu it fh&t on 29.9.92 at about 12.00 iu the noon, whai she was going to take batti in tfae pond, on fhe way, she was abused by thc accused/appcUante. On tfae baais of this, PIR Ex.P/2 was registered agaiast the accused/appeUauts for fhe offcnces uader Section 3 (l)(x) of thc Scheduled Caste/Scheduted Tribe (Prevention of Atrodties) Act. After invcstigation 1 chaUaa was filed and the appellants were piosccuted by thc J Special Judge, Durg. 3. So as to hold thc accused/appellants guilty fhe prosecution has examined three witnesses. Statement ofthe accuscd/appcllaats wcre also recorded iinder Sectiou 313 of ^>o the Code of Crimiaal Prcxiedui'E in wlu.ch they denied the charges leveUed agaiust thcm. and pleadcd their innocence and false iaiplicatioa in the case. This apart, two defence witnesses have also bccn examined by fhein in support ofits case. 4. Afler heariog the parties, the trial Coiu-t tos ecnvicted the accused/appdlants for the offencc as aforementioned. Hence ttus appcat 3. Contention of fhe counsel for the appeUants is that fhere is no docuxaent available on record showing the fact that ttie coiaplamant beloi^s to scheduted caste. He submits fhat in absence of any such document, ander no streteh of imagmation, the accused/appeUaats can be convicted for the offence uuder Section 3 (l)(x) offhe SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submits that even in the wntten report it has not been stated by the coiaplainant that she was intentronaUy insultcd by the accused/appeUaats because she belongs to a particiilar caste. He furfher subButs that in fhe present casc fhe invest^atton has been done by fhe ASI and ss per rute 7 of the Scheduted Caste/Scheduled Tribc (PrevcntKMi of AtFoeities) Act, fhe mvestigation ought to have becn doiie by fhe Dy. Supcrintendent of Polfc«. He furtter submlts fhat without committing fhe case before fhe learaed Magistrate, chaUan was directty ffled before the Special Judge which is not permission uader fh.e law. 3. On the .ofher haad supportiag fhe iinpugned judgmcnt it has been argued. by tfae State counsel that fhe manner in which the coinplamaat was abused cleaily speUs out the case under Section 3(1)(x) of fhe Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of AtTOcitie^ Act. Though he adiiiits fhat thcre is no dociunent on record to shoiw fhat fhe coiaplamant bclongs to a particular caste. 4. I have heard counsel for fhe parties. In fhe written report itself it bas not been stated by the cointilainaat fhat she belontts to a teu-tkiular caste and ^ii ^: that she has been iatentioiiaUy insulted or abused by fhe accused persons. She has merely stated fhat on the date of incident she was atoused by fhe aecused persons and somc filfhy langiiage was used by caBing her 'chccmcmn'. In her coiirt stateinent fhe coinplauiant has stated that on fhe date of iucident when shc was goit^ to latee batli ia fhe pond, on the way shc saw fhat just opposite to her betel shop, the accused/appeUants had dumped the soil as fhey were constructmg their house and over which theie was some dispute aad fhey have abused her by using filthy langu^e. She has stated fhat fhe inddent has been witaessed by Durga aad Khorbehara. Statement of the complauuEuxt has not beea fuUy supported by Dui^a Prasad (P.W.-3) whereas Khorbehara. bas not been exanuned. R.K. Singh (P.W.-l) Invest^ating ofiBcer has supported fhe case of ttie prosecutiou. 5. Admittedly fhe prosecution has not filed any document to show the caste of fhe coinplamant whicli is sme qua rwn for convicting auy person ia relation to fhe offence pertainiag to fhe piovision of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act. It ia a setfled legal position that fhe production of ndevant documcnt regardiag flie caste of fhe coinplainant is njecessary to estabUsh fhe oflfence under the provteions af Prevention of Atrocities Act It is thus very clear that fhe conviction of fhe appeUant under Sectfon 3(1)(10) af tbe Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Preveation of Atoocities) Act is not in accordance wifli law fherefotB fhe sanuc is set ^ide. Furfhermore the delay of fiye days ia lodging fhe FIR has also not been satisfactonfy explamed by the coinplainaat. Even fhe so caUed eyewitaess has ateo not fulty supported the case offhe piosecution. ^cordingfy, tbe appeal is aBowcd, impugacd judgment dated 7.10.94 is hereby set aside. The appeUant te on bail, his teail tonds staad discharged. —— Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge