HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE 3ENCH: HON’BLE smu R. L. JHANW$ J. Criminal Agneal No. 1225! 1992 3. JUDGMENT‘ ‘ H ‘ POST ON :30 JULY, 2009 sw- J 4 § / ’ i I ‘ APPELLANT Loknath Sahu Q3 ; i VerSuS r r“ g RESPONDENTS State of M.P. (Now C.G:) f 1 § an’d one anothcr :HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ’ - S' Sil ahu, cse or he ppellant. Present: hn un S ounl f t a Shi Padep h Lr f St. ' 1 re Siug, Panel awye or the ate ' (Delivre 2 009) is n pe i me of n 1. Th c'minal apal s directed against the-judgnt convictio and order of sentence dated ‘14th October, 1992 delivered in Special Case No.12] 1992, Wherebyvthe learned Special Judge, Raigarh while acquitting the appellant—Loknath under Section 3 (v) & (x) of the Scheduléd Castes 8o Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 and under Section 294 of the IPC convicted him under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay hne of Rs 500/ m default of payment of hne to undergo S I for 3 months 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Chandmmam‘ had lent his agricultural held to the accused persons'.‘l‘he Panchayat decided that the accused persons will give Rs 1150/? to Chandmmni However the accused persons started g1v1ng Rs 360/ before the , : ’Panchayat Chandramam sald that he W111 not take R3860] but W111 SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SE1 RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1225/ 1992 Appeal Uls 374 [1} of the Criminal ProcedureCode J u n G M E N T ed on 47/ 2 Appellant i r Loknath Sahu, S/o Lakhan Sahu aged about 50 {years rcsxdencs of Bagacln thana Beramkela, District Raigarh Versus Respondents 1." State of M.P. through District Magistrate, 'Raigarh 2. A Chandramani, S/o Mahadeo Ganda only take Rs.1150/-, whersupon the accused persons abused him. Accused ‘Dukalu caught hold his haixs and thrown him mi the ground. Loknath sat on his chest ami all of the accused persons committed marpit With h1m Report of the incident, EX.P— 1, was lodged with the police station. Chandmmam' wasrefen‘ed to the hospital for medical/examinationtwhere Dr. G. Sahu (P.W.6) examined him. His . ‘ report is EXP-8. 3. Statements of Witnesses wele recorded. Aiier compleiion of invesh'gation, charge sheet was nled before the Special Judge, Raigarh. 4. The learned Special Judge, framed charge under Section 3 (v) an (x) of the‘Sch'eduled Castes 8n Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrociu'es), . I Act 1989 and Sections 294 8a 323 of the IPC against the accused persons. After taking evidenceand aner hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Special'Judge acquitted all the accused persons h‘om the charge under Section‘3 (v) & (X) of the Scheduled Castes 6:; Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 and . Secu'on 294 of the IPC, and except appellant—Loknath Sahu, others were also acquitted of the charge under Section 323 of the IPC. Appellant — Loknath Sahu has been convicted under Section 323 of the. IPC and has been sentenced to'pay a hne of RS500] -. 5. I have learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the Q record ofSpecial Case 'No. 12/ 92. 6‘.\Dr‘. G. Sahu‘ (P.W.6) Who has examined Chandmman‘i has found simple injuries on his body. His report is EXP—8. . Chandxamani (RW; 1) has deposed that an agresmént was executed between the accused persons and him that a sum of Rs. 1 150/ — will be given to him in lieu of harvesting the crop, whereas accused persons started giving him Rs.360/—. Chandramam‘ (P.W.1) Iefused to accept Rs.36OI—, whereupon the accused persons abused him and committed marpit with him 8. Mahadev (P.W.2) has deposed that Chandramani came to him and narrated the incident of marpit committed by the accused persons. 9. Aftenperusal of the record and evidence it is evident that the learned Special Judge did not rely upon the statements of Chandtamm' (P.W.1) 8r, Mahadev (P.W.2) and thereby acquitted accused Bhjm 8r, Chakm'under Section 323 of the IPC, whereas relying on the same evidence of same witnesses the appeliant~Loknath was, convicted under Section 323 of the IPC. The Special Judge has committed ennr in convicting the appellant— Loknath Sahu on the same evidence. 10. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has erred in sentencing the appellant. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentenceK/‘IJV ‘\ imposed upon‘the appellant are set aside. ‘Sd/- (t r L,- r we R.L.Jhanwar ‘ \ Judge W’x ; \ \ ’7 {