I muiauaaawym Cr 1m1naAppe al No . l /96 ; Dhoom Bas son of Ram Prasad Sahu, resident of Salheb(ana, Pol.1ce Stn, é i ,‘_Saisinv', Dist. Rapur; 1 J i ¢ ‘ APPELLANT: injai Ver sus State of Madhya Pradesh E APPLICATION UNIZ/‘ER SECTION‘374 OF TI—E COD OF CRIMINAL éBoc%DuaE l 1 97g. RE3FUNDEN;: ‘ m § G HIGH COURT OF CEHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER cmAJuo. 17/1995 Dhoom Das APPELLANT ‘ 1 VCI'SUS REs‘PONDEm State 0f MP. A Shri H.S.Patel, counsel for the appeHant. Shn' Ashkh Gupta P.L. for thc State. APPEAL U] S 3‘74I2l OF THE CHMINAL PROCEDURE CODE JUDGMENT ¢1s.o4.2o1 1) The pmsent appeal arises but of the judgment 35 order dated 28.12.95 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Cr. Case No. 22/92 convicting the accused/appelhnt for the offence punishable under Section 3 {1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste] Scheduled ’I‘n‘be (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ( in short ‘the Act’) and sentencing Wm to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.1231 a mitten report (EXP! 1) was lodged by the complainant GmwanEai (P.W.—1) alleging that a dav before thereto i.e. on 13.1291 her cattle had entered the neld of the accusedfappellant 8r. damaged his Alsi (linseed) (troy on account of which she was abused by him using filthy language and also in the name of her caste. After enquiry chailan was iiled on 02.02.92 under‘Section 294, 506-“ [PC and 3 (1)(x) of the Act. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined 4 Witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. \“\ 4 After hearing caunsel for the parties, thc trial Court has convicted tTha accused/appsllant under Section 3 (l)(x) 5f the Act ang santenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Oontention of Shri Patel, counsel for the. appellant is that eomplainant Gurwari‘Bai (RWI-l} has not supperted the prosecution ease and has categoricaiiy deposed in the court that out of anger she lodged the report and the accused/appellant had neither abused her nor Iiad beaten her. He further submits that no caste certificate whatsoever t has-‘been filed by the prosecution in respect of the (mete of the complairiont which is a sine quq non for proving the case under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of § Atrocities) Act. ' 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Shri Gupta that in the examination-in—chief the prosecuin'x had made allegation against the accused] appellant and therefore based on the same, his conviction is fully justihed. 7. Gmwari Bai (P.W.-1)- complainant in her court statement has stated that on the date of incident her cattle had entered the held of the accused] appellant and damaged his Alsi crop on account of which she was abused by him in filthy language and also in the name of her caste. She has stated that the written report (Ex.P/ 1) was singed by her but in cross-examination she has 3%ted that before the said incident them was never any dispute béiween her and the accused] appellant and even after the incident their relations have became cordial as the accused/appellant called her Aunt. She has funher stated that now they are living peacefully, compromise has also taken place between them and she has already med an application to thisiag‘ect vide Ex.D/1. She has clarified that the incident occurred as her bun'aloes' entered his held and damaged his crop and out of anger, she lodged the report. She has stated that the accused/appellant never hurled any abuse or had beaten her. In para 6 of her cross examination she has stated that she is illiterate and 'a typed report was prepared by one Jeewan Lal and without explaining the contents of the same to her she had put her thumb lmpIBSSIOIl. la Jeewan Lal (P.W.-2) has though stated about the lodging of FIR but in cross-examinatien he too has admitted the fact that the accused/appenant calls the complamant as hls aunt and she also treats mm as her son He has stated that pnor to the mc1dent and even after the mcxdent there 1s no d1spute between the complamant and the appellant He has stated that the accused! appeliant is a poor v‘iha‘ger and that is Why he got angry when her cattle entered his held and damaged his crop of Alsi Jag'iwan (P W —3)—son of the complainant has not supported the pmsecution case Jhadu Das (P W -4) has also been declamd hostile» The mveshgahng ohicer has not been exammed ner the FIR has been proved \ {8 Considering the entire evidence, in pmticular the evidence of the complainant where she has not supported the pmsecution ease nd has deposed that the accused/appellant has never abused her nor has beaten her it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the r1 conviction of the accused] appellant under Section 3 {1)(X) of the said Act. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowe. The impugned judgment of the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused] appellant under Sech'on 3‘(1)(x) of theziaid Act is set aside. The accusedjappellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. As the accused/appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. ‘gain ’ Pritinker Diwaker Judge Sd/— a d