“n'mmnnmnm “ F0005944‘ INu THE HIGH COURT OF MADECA PBADESH AT JQALPUB. CRIINA AyEA N.°5 OF 19. / UDAY/éHA sxNgH, 8 yars; 7 Son of opal nKsiét . G 'éghkgn L of Mgzine afa‘Ha1iba,e ‘ Pole staon‘prmiri, Dis¢ . . . sm 1/) G'UJA,‘ ( M 2 I state of Madhy Prdesh./ f v ' . d2; ...... ' ' " " nml mi: . . . . ; ,C008 jl ......... ..... A 7.i_r.i i ML PL o:?_&‘' 96 . . . N Agga 2 e 1 a Di/,dr{ t L ic ggi tr1t *1 APwLLANTQ Versus V / RESPONDENT a a 2 OFTHE CODE gF CBmmAL PROCEDURE,1223 ' ‘CBIMINQ £PEAL UNDEB CTIOH Q5) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench s Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker . Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1996 APPELLANT ' Uday Bhan Singh Versus RESPONDENT SmTe of Madhya Pmdesh Shri Ravi Bhoga‘l’, ccunsel for 1'l1e appellant. Shrl Vi’vek Sharma, PL for fhe Slate. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (23.03.2011) This appeal is direcfed against The impugned judgment and order dafed 8.2.1996 passed by Addifional Sessions Judge,_ Manendragarh, Dlsfricl Sarguja in Special Criminal Case Noe 30/1993 convicting The accused/appellant for the offence l punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.01.1993 at about 6.30 pm. FIR. (EXP-1) was lodged by complainant Sarju (PW—1) alieging in it that on that day at about 6 am. the accused/appellant and acquitted accused Dhramraj Singh had abused him in the name of his caste over some dispute related to temple. Based on this FIR, offence under $ection 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste 61 Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against the accused/appellant and the acquitted accused Dharmraj ‘Singh. After -investigation, aha/Ian was filed on 52.1993 under Section 3 (1) ’lr (x) of The Scheduled Cas1'e & Schedukd Tribe (Prevemion of Atrocities) Act 3. So as 1’0 hold The accused persons guil’ry, prosecufion has examined 4 wimesses’in support of its case. Sfaiemen'rs of ihe accused/appelianis Were also recorded under Section 313 of ‘ the Code of iCriminoi Procedure in which they denied the charges ieveiled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the impugned judgment trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Dhar'mar'aj Singh whereas present accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He submits that filing of such document is necessary especially when the caste of the complainant has been disputed by the ‘ accused/appellant;According to him as the incident had taken place in the house of the complainant, the same cannot be termed as place within public view and, therefore, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under the special Act. He further submits that even in the F.I.R., the place of i occurrence has not been mentioned by the complainant and this major lacuna cannot be fulfilled subsequently by the complainant by adducing oral evidence in this respect. He further submits that as per the F.I.R., incident is said to have taken place at about 6 am. whereas as per the court statement of the witnesses, incident tool? place in between 8 - 9' p.m. and \V/ ‘ fhus an this ground also The accused/appeuan'r is liable To the acqurH'ed He furl’her' submlls fhal In The F I R If Is alleged fhal both 'l'he accused persons have abused The complgman‘r whereas m lhe courf the complainant had made allegation only against the accused/appellant and thls lnconslstency m his statement creates doubt m the entire prosecution case. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the some being strictly m accordance With law does not call for any interference in this appeal 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned. 8. Complainant Sarju (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that accused/appellant Udaybhan had implicated him in a cm of rape and in the said case he was granted bail on the date of ineldent itself He has stated that at about 8—9 pm when he was in his house accused/appellant abused him from the door of his house by using filthy language and by calling him chamar He has further stated that accused DhramraJ (acquitted accused) who is also residing just opposite to his house had not abused him. He has further stated that on accountrof the D influence of the accused/appellant nobody could dare to come out from there houses but one Ramlal and Horial had seen the entire incident. In cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that in a case of rape, the accused/appellant was one of the witnesses and had deposed against him. He has further admitted the fact that there was some previous dispute between him and the accused/appellant. He has also stated that he could not lodge the report on the same day as he was ‘i'\ @ Threafened by 1he accused/appellanf and fhe report was lodged on 'l'he second day. D.P. Patel (PW-2) is The AssH. Sub Inspector who had registered ‘rhe F.I.R. (Ex.P-1). Ramlal @ Sarju (PW—3);?has stated in his evidence 1haf on the date of incidenf The. accused/appellan‘l’ abused ’rhe complainant by using fiithy ianguage. Hen has stated that acquitted accused Dharmr‘aj Singh was not present on the spot. This witness has not stated anything about the abuses used by the accused/appeilant in relation to the caste of the complainant. Hor'ilal (PW-4) another eye witness to the incident has stated that at about 8 pm. in the night, accused/appellant abused his father—in-law i.e. complainant by using filthy language and by calling him C‘hamar. 9.’ e It is an admitted position that no caste certificate or any other related document to this effect which is a sine qua non for holding the accused/appellant guilty under the special Act has been produced by the prosecution to show that the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community. Secondly, it is not disputed that the incident had taken place in the house of the accused/appellant and therefore the same cannot be termed a place within public view as defined under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which is one of basic ingredients for holding the accused/appellant guilty under the special Act. Furthermore, as per the F.I.R., incident is said to have taken place at about 6 a.m. whereas as per the court statement of the witnesses incident took piace in between 8 - 9 pm. Thus the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution does not .inspire confidence of this court and in these circumstances it wiii no? be safe for This Courf To convicf 1'he accused/appellam under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act 10. In conclusion, fhe appeal is aiiowed. Impugned judgmenf daTed 8.2.1996 is hereby se‘r aside. Appellant is acqui‘rfed of the charge ievelied against him. Since appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds s‘l’and discharge. l Sd# l Pritinker Diwaker ‘ p ‘ 4 _ Judge