IN TI-rg 1-IIGH COUR':!,' QF JUDICATURE AT JABJ'AP'WP' Crirainal Appeal No. /96 CFOOOOOSOsSi1 &PPELIANT Kafii3.ar ^ S/o Rajan Kolta^- aged 50 years, R/p Vlllage Kag'dol, Tliana Saraipali, Distr-tct; Raipu-r' VERSUS RESPOMjENT 2 /, - K~;i""r":~ t, H^( State of Mad'nya' Pradesh- tarouo;I-i P.s. Raiour APPEAL.UNB'ER SEG. 374-Gr.P.C. ( Being aggrieved by the Jucigement arid Convlction dated 31. 5.<,'96-'pass'ed in sss.siaas special Case No. 174/96,--by the Learned Special Hession >Tudge Raipar ) ,. & ?S) I-.! •• / ^ A-^ /">^ %e a: R-.s. HIGH COURT OF CMHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Crinninal Appeal No. 981 of 1996 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Mafidar State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Sunil Sahu counsel for the appellant. ShriVivek Sharma PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDERSECTION 374 (2) OF THECODE QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (25.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 174/1996 convicting the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x)of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment offine to further undergo simple ifflprisonment for three months. 2. Caseof the prosecution in brief is that on 11.10.1993/23.10.1993 a written report was made by six women including Chandra Bai '(PW-1) alleging that accused/appellant and three other persons were harassing the people belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community and thereby depriving them of getting the benefits under various government sshemes. It is-alleged that accused/appellant is a Teudal landlQrd.{ft7aa/9u/a^ and after consuming liquor he was in the habitof abusing women belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community and was not even permitting them to fetch water from the public bore-well. Based on this report FIR (unexhibited) was registered agajnst the accused/appellant hereinand three other persons dn 2.12.19&3 under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste \ BSI H M ..;;. 8's£'st%,.'^ •S-' .^-s'. "%. .?.•' f. -'•^ 'SBSh a ff^" and Scheduled Tribe (Prevehtion of Atrocities) Act. After completion of investigation challan was filed on 7.2.1994 for the said offence. 3. So as to hold fhe accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons werealso recorded undersecti6n313ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied theCharges levelled against them and pleaded their innoGenGe and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the pari:ies the trial Court has acquitted accused Mahendro, Shankar and Lalo of the charge levelled against them but convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant herein as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the fact that the complainant party belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community as no evidencein this regard either oral or documentary has been adduced by the prosecution. He submits that in this case the investigation has been done by the Sub Inspector whereas according to the legal provisionsit ought to have been done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He submits that even the investigating officer has not been examined in this case and that neither in the repori: nor in the evidence the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (X) are made out bythe prosecution. Me sybmTts that there'is no evidence on record to show that the accuse^/appellaat had abused the complainant party in the hame of their caste. < .' ' • ' • • ~ 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondenVState supports the judgment impugnedand submits that the findings ofthe Court below convicting the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Seheaufed Caste and-Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act t^^h •^w" ^ -s— being based on the material available on record.are just and proper and do not call for any interference in thisappeal. 8. Chandra Bai (PW-1) has.stated in her evidence that she belongs to Soura caste and also holds the postof the Presidentof the Mahila Mandal of 30 members. She has stated that all fhe accused persons belong to the same family and on account offetching ofwaterfromthe borewell there was a dispute between her and the accused persons. She has statedthat the accused persons had thrown cow-dung in tlle said well and when all the women had gone to fetch water in the public bore-well, they were nof permitted to do so by the accused persons. In cross examination this witness has stated that written report was prepared by one Dolamani and that she was not aware as fo what was written in the same. She has stated that in her village there are as many as five bore-wells, one being located in her area and the accused persons are residingi in a different area. She has admitted the fact that there are two groups in the village and she belongs toone group whereas the accused persons b^long to the ofherone. She has stated in the application made by her that the said application was filed by only six persons belonging to her group. She has stated that quarrel had taken place when thecomplainanf party had not allowed the accused persons to feteh water from fhe pond. However, according to this witness, before the incident there existed no quarrel between her party and the accused persons. Samari Bai (PW-2) has stated that there was some disputeon accoynt of fetching water from the pond and the accused/appellant had asked her that the pond did not belong to her father. This witness has not made any specific allegation against the accused/apjpellant to connect him with the crime in question. Gurwari Bai (PW-3) has made almost similar allegation as has been made by Chahdra Bai (PW-1)and Samari Bai (PW-2). She has stated that'members of the Mahila Mandal were abused by the accused persons and that the accused/appellant herein had put a fencing ih a lioring which was opposife to his house. Vishakha Bai (PW-4) has not^ -supported th3 case pfthe pcosecufion and has beendeclared hostile.^ Lata Bai (PW-5)-tias made almost similar allegation as has been made ^ .-.^ -^ -'.sai!l>. ;?J • •(-I by Chandra Bai (PW-1) and Samari Bai (PW-2). Mathura Bai (PW-6) is the investigating officer and she has supported the case of the prosecution. * 9. A bare reading of theevidence adduced by the prosecution makes it clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the caste of the complainant as no evidence - oral or documentary has been brought forth to this effect. Record also shows that thereare two parties in the village - complainant party belongs to the one whereas fhe accused/appellant belongs to the other and therefore on account of village politics possibility offalse implication ofthe accused/appellant in the case in hand cannot be ruled out. More so, the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the complainant party was abused by the accused persons in public view. Taking all these aspects together, this Court is of the view that ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and .Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act are not attracfed to the case in hand. 10. Consequently, it is held that the conviction of the accused/appellant under this special enactment is liable to be set aside byallowing the appeal. Accordingly the appeal isallowed. Judgment impugned is set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of thecharge levelled against him. He is on bail. Bail bonds furnished by him stand discharged. Pritinker Diwaker Judge . . / ^)