XI-HC—7E wws^ :;,«7!3i! 3=Er 'Ai!A]irt<i, ^•Jiy»i(o,(siciiy^< .^-X-:...'.^...-......S:..^ ?«iTw^liCT3i%?r qipiferitTwmf^fvS-d^R ^3tfgit3ni?[ Hlt.rH UOUKT Ot' CIfitlAT'l'lHUAKM AT BlLASt'UK CRIMINAL APPEi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present: Shri Shiv Kumar Uike, Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. Dhirendra Mishra, J This appeal is directed and order of sentence dated 1 Sessions Case No. 35/02 Ambikapur, constituted unde (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 323 of the IPC and imprisonment for a period of and pay a fine of Rs.lOQO/ undergo further R.I. of one m< N0. 54 OF 2003 Shankar Ram Kushwaha, S/o. Motiram Kushwaha, aged about 38 years, R/o. Parri, P.S.H. - Surajpur, Dist. - Surguja (C.G.) /ERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.H. Officer Police Station - Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ^ounsel for the appellant. |for the State/respondent. ORAIt JUDGMENT (1^.08.2007) against the judgment of conviction |2th December 2002 passed in Special whereby leamed Special Court, k- Scheduled Caste Sc, Scheduled Tribe 1989 convicted the appellant under sentenced him to undergo rigorous two days already undergone by hiin 1-, in default of payment of fine to mth. — t III! 1181 XI-HC—78 3^T •^WW-'-t, (Snfly'Kc, fs|0iyy MWdl »<<!* <5-^ STI^I ^t hi\'h WiaiiTOtgiIlW •S^iraT^iWa.l? 'filltct'it-i VM<S '^fS?:S tfSR^R <^ 2. -- The appellant was profeecuted under Section 294 of IPC read with Section 3(l)(10).of the| (Prevention of Atrocities) Ac^ However, learned Special C^urt acquitted him of all the charges except charge under Sectfo n 323 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. Conviction of the appe] 12 Devdhari, the complai| Complainant Devdhari was] whereas the appellant was the appellant are that he him to put his thumb impij refusal he abused the threatened him to murder complainant lodged a examination. 4. Defence of the appellaijit incident has occurred in tbe Mohd. Harun and at the tiilne had snatched the papers frcjm the accused by fists and in| Rajesh, the coinplainant, As^iok that process the complainatit against the door. All these complainant though he ha^ Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe and Sections 323 SE 506 of the IPC. llant is based on the statement of PW- jiant and PW-3 Rajesh Kushwaha. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Parri panchayat Sachiv. Allegations against caljled Sarpanch in the Panchayat, asked |ession on certain papers and on his contplainant in the name of his caste, hint and beat him, whereupon the rep|3rt and he was sent for medical before the Court below was that the presence of Ashok Choubey and of incident in fact witness Rajesh the accused and he had assaulted the scuffle between the accused and and Harun had intervened and in sustained injuries as he smashed suggestions have been denied by the admitted that accused sent Ashok U-HC—78 3^- ^IIAII^, riTfl^lrf, RlOWy ..e^C.....^............<S'............. S^S^aTCiW s TRnW(ri?;i Sil^T ^ i *)T<*1<il'l 'HTH^I? ^ •^TSiRiH 3(1^^1 Choubey and Harum to <^all him whereupon he came to the itted that report of the incident was intly in the police station. He has also accused. He has also.adn^ lodged by him and Rajesh jo|i admitted that in the report accused fhreatened him to kjiil. 5. PW-3 Rajesh Kushwaj-ia asked the complainant to paid to Ashok Coubey, whjit whereupon the accused abu^ caste and beat him by han<| also beat him and tried to sr) the suggestions given to this| the accused and the comi Choubey intervened, as sustained some injuries. H( was drafted by him and he though he has stated that instructions of the complaina 6. The accused in his Cr.P.C. has denied the mater innocence and false implicat implicated in the crime due Choubey as defence witness the date of incident at ab( coraplainant were sitting t( f Ex.P/4 he did not mendon that the has also stated that the accused ign the voucher as money was to be :h was refused by the complainant •d the complainant in the name of his 1s 85 fists and thereafter, the accused [atch the papers from him. Similar are Iwitness that in fact he tried to assault blainant as also Harun and Ashok result of which the complainant has admitted that report of Ex.D/1 ]has also signed the report of Ex.D/1 the said report was drafted as per )nt. jtatement under Section 313 of the (al appearing against him and pleaded ion. He has stated that he has been jo old animosity. He examined Ashok No. 1. This witness has stated that on jut 12.00 noon witness Rajesh and Igether, he asked for his payment, n.i^Bi. ••n Tjr' -_^ a-H ^ 3^^ ^ii.iii^, (SiTfly'Ko, (sic'>iyy .A. ••^ 2003 5^s'^?nfTm? fsisn^T'ai'iRi' •g^iRR^litaaiKa ^raferaN •WRff•?.fe^^n?^ ^; .sifOT sii^^r whereupon the complainanlj told him to call the Sachiv i.e. the appellant and they will-see it| he along with Sachiv went ti in the Panchayat Bhawan. Thereafter, Panchayat Bhawan, at that dme the Sarpanch was nol present iji the Panchayat Bhawan, he went to the Cycle Stores of RajesK |to call Sarpanch and from there he •; 1 came to Panchayat Bhawaiji ^along with Sarpanch, Rajesh and Harun. Panchayat Sachiv rejquested the Sarpanch to sign various papers, whereupon Rajesh K ^ishwaha said that they shall take the file and show it to some oth^r person outside, which was objected to by the appellant and the| appellant said that the file can be checked only in the office an<^ he will not permit the file to be taken outside. However, Rajesh fojrcibly snatched the papers from the appellant and thereafter, Rajejsh and the appellant were engaged in the scuffle. intervened. At that time Kushwaha as also the defenc Sarpanch himself and Harun had 7. From perusal of statemjents of PW-2 Devdhari, PW-3 Rajesh p witness Ashok Choubey it appears that there was a scuffle betw^en the parties. The complainant and his witness Rajesh have ma^e allegations against fhe appellant that he gave fist blows to th] and his defence witness havd scuffle when the complainant coinplainant whereas the accused stated that in fact the scuffle took place between the accused a|nd witness Rajesh and in the said ^ried to intervene, he sustained some injuries. In the light of contr^dictory statements of the witaesses examined from both the sid^s, it is very difficult to reach to a M-HC—78 3^^ •^IWM^, ®xf1yiis,isj^iyy &cc:.....^.. 3-'i^I ^, fS?W ?]Sn3^WqN7 '^ •^ 2003 •s^i'KR'Hitifsn^f eRi^^ "W^ff "^ f^t <?'sS'^.!< ^•aifin sii^^i considedadon definite conclusion as to whil However, taking into is signed by the coraplainaijit allegations have been made a| both of them, it appears th'at| withheld by the respective of the judgment it appears by the Sub Divisional Magisl Mohd. Harun, in which they Iji between Rajesh and the a.^ injuries while he was trying tc| ;h of the parties is stadng the truth. the complaint of Ex.D/1, which as also witness Rajesh, in which ;ainst the appellant that he assaulted the true facts have been deliberately .. From perusal of paragraph -14 some stateinent was also recorded ^rate of witness Ashok Choubey and ^ad stated that in fact the scufUe was Ipellant and complainant sustained separate the two. pafties thlat rivfel 8. Thus, in the light of riv Cburt was not justified in explicit reliance on the stat witness Rajesh, ignoring the 9. In the result, the ap]peal appellant under Section 32; thereon, are set aside. He is claims of both the parties, the trial rejaching to the conclusion by placing ;ments of the complainant and his Itatement of the defence witness. succeeds. Convicdon of the of the IPC and sentence passed cquitted of the above charge. . __ Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge