Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 417 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.1998 passed by Sri Amod Prasad Ram, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 17 of 1995. ****** 1. Chandan Singh, Son of Geeta Singh. 2. Geeta Singh, Son of Late Faudi Singh. Both resident of village – Raipur Dumra, P.S. – Maranchi, District – Patna. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 425 of 1998 1. Manman Singh. 2. Sunil Singh. Both son of Sri Kedar Singh. 3. Pappu Singh, Son of Kapildeo Singh. 4. Kapil Deo Singh, Son of Late Nathuni Singh. 5. Polu Singh, Son of Ratan Singh. All residents of village – Rampur Dumra, Police Station – Maranchi, District – Patna. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellants : M/s. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Advocate. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned 2 counsel for the State. 2. These two appeals are being heard together and disposed of by the common judgment and order as both appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 17.11.1998 passed by Sri Amod Prasad Ram, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 17 of 1995 by which the appellants of both the appeals have been convicted under Sections 3(i)(x) and 2 (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as S.C. and S.T. Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 25.07.1995 the accused persons came, caught hold of him and assaulted him and then Geeta Singh and Kapildeo Singh commanded to kill and the accused persons surrounded and assaulted him with Lathi, dagger and pistol and the motive for the occurrence is the land dispute. 4. On the fardbeyan of the informant, First Information Report was lodged and after investigation cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Harizan Atrocities Act. 5. During the trial 11 witnesses were examined. However, out of 11 witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have only supported the prosecution case though have deposed that they have compromised and filed 3 compromise. However, other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case either turned hostile or tendered. However, P.W. 9 is the doctor and P.W. 11 is the Police Officer. 6. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court acquitted the appellants from the charges under Section 307/34 as well as 342 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (2) (v) of the S.C. S.T. Act. However, convicted the appellants under Section 3 (1) of the S. C. S. T. Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that there is no allegation either in the fardbeyan and there is no evidence at all that the assault was made with an intent to humiliate the member of the scheduled caste. The prosecution case itself is a simple case of assault and the motive for the occurrence is the land dispute and there is neither any allegation that the accused persons abused or assaulted by calling caste names to them nor there is any evidence that the appellants were intentionally insulted or intimidated or assaulted with intention to humiliate the member of the scheduled caste. 8. However, taking into consideration the evidence on the submission and the evidence adduced and from perusal of the First Information Report, it is apparent that allegation is of assault with command to kill for land dispute for which the lower court acquitted the appellants. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to insult or 4 intimidate by calling the prosecution party by their caste name nor any evidence to suggest that the occurrence took place to insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate the member of scheduled caste. It is a simple case of assault for land dispute. The allegation is simple. The case is of land dispute and not for intimidating or insulting or humiliate the member of schedule caste and hence Section 3 (i) (x) of the S.C. S.T. Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence I find that no offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the S.C. S.T. Act is made out either as per the allegation or evidence adduced and hence the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is hereby set aside and both the appeals are allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 8th August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.