'i-y IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABAL Criminal Appe al No .-^_*|^97 APPELLANT: COn baiiy /Single Bench ^rsr,^} Vibhas Agrawal s,,0fi of Sankerlal- Versus. RESPO?OE^: 'Agaawal aged 31 yee.rs, resident of Bagbahra, Dist. Raipyr / State of Madhya Pradesh ."^' o \f '^ CRMINAL APPEALUNDER_SECTJON_3Z4_(2^ CF-FH£~^BE--OT-CBmiMAl7-EROCEDOBl7-1973 < / ->.. 'a »J:.^£/^ " :.»> iK^%-'^ ,\\ i^f^ HIGH COURT OF CMHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. justice Pritinker Dlwaker) Criminai Appeal No. 954 of 1997 APPELLANT RESPONDENT 'ERSUS Vibhas Agrawat State of Madhya Pradesh Shrl B, D. Guru, counsel'Torthe appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan for ths State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D <3 M E N T The present appeal arises out of the judgment and orcier dated 10,04.1997 passed.by Speciai Judge., Ralpwr in Speeiat Criminal Case No. 340 of 1996 convicting the accused/appeltant under Secttons 341 of IPC and 3 (l) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short lthe Acf) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days u/s 341 and rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 500., in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three mOnths u/s 3 (1) (X) of the Act. Both the sentences were dlrected to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.06.1996 a written report Ex.P-X was made by the complainant Da^iruram (PW- 1) who yvas' working as an Accountant in the State Bank of India, BagBahra Branch alleging in !t that about 15 days priQr to the date of_.jncident the appellant Vibhas Agrawal had presented two cirafts for encashment but as there was certaln discrepancies ln the said drafts, the same could not be encashed immedlately and was sent to the issuing branch for verifieatien. On 11.06.199S at about 6.30 p.m. when he was s -4.- returning from the Bank, the present appellant and the acquitted accused Sanjay stopped him and started abuslng him by using fitthy language and also in the name of his caste. It is further alleged that he was also threatened by them. Based on this "written report, FIR Ex. P-2 was registered on 12.06.1996 again^: the presait appettmt and the acquitted accused Sanjay Agfawa) under Sectians 294, 341, 506 read wjth Sectfon 34 of IPC and 3 (l) (X) of the Act. After jnvestigation, Challan was filed on 28.06.1996 against them for the said offenees. 3. So as to hotd the accused persons guilty; prosecutton has examined 06 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded uncter section 313 of the Code of Criminal Proeedure in whfch they denied the charges levelled agalnst them and pleaded thetr innQcence and false imptication In the case. This apart, two witnesses namely S. N, Shrivastava (DW-l) and C. S. Sonwani (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case 4. After hearlng the parties the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Sanjay Agrawal of atl the charges leveHed agalnst him whereas the present appellant though has been acquittect of the offence under Sections 294 anct 506 read wlth Section 34 of IPC but convicted and sentenced for the offence under ^ections 341 of IPC anct 3 (l) (X) of the Act, hence, the present appeal. 5. Contention of the iearned counsel for the appellant is that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under Sectipn 3 (l) (x) of the Act is not maete out against the appettant because there is no ctocumentary evidertce on record in respect of the caste of the complainant whleh Is sine-qua-non for bringlng home the offence under r": \^ the provisions of the said Act especfalty when the caste of the complainant has been disputed by the appetlant. He submits that even the offence under Section 341 of IPC is not made out against the appellant beeause the baslc ingredlents of the said section are missmg )n the present case. TTiat apfflt, there is matertal improvement in the Court statement of the complainant from that 6f his <?ase diary statement and the R:R. He submits that aceoraing to the complalnant, number of persons had seen the incident including Satyanarayan (PW-4) but the said Satnarayan has not supported the prosecution case whereas other independent witnesses have not been examined in the court. He further submits that the complainant had demanded money fbr encashment of ctrafts and the appellant refused to give the same^ therefore, a fatse case has been cooked-up against him. 6. On the other hand supporttng the tmpugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counset that the impugned judgment is strictty In accordance wlth law and there is no infjrmity In the same. 7. Dashru Ram (PW-1), the complatnant who was worklng as an accountant in the State Bank of India has stated In his evidence that on the date of incident when he was retuming after closlng the Bank, at about 6.30 p.m. the appettant Vlbhas Agr^wal stopped him and abused hlm by using filthy tanguage^nd also In the name of his caste and thereafter he was atso-threatened by him. According to hlm, number of persons had gathered at the place of incident. Me has stated that about 15-20 days prior to the date of incldent the appellant had coccie to the bank to eneash draft but due to some over writing in the same, the said draft was retumed to hjm and hewas advised to encash the draft by, correcting the same and ©senmaan aecsunt in the issuing branch at Raipur. -4- He has stated that the appetiant was a regular customer of the bank and there used to be hot talks between him and the bank employees during the buslness transactlon and the Empioyees would not like his behaviour. He has admltted the fact that after enqulry/information was recelved that the ctraft in-questlon was issued in the name of the appellant. He has stated that even after two dayf of the Incident he had a talk with the appellant and the appellant had asked hlm as to why he was harassing him unnecessarily and not making the payment of the draft, He has stated that at the time of making wrjtten report he had not disclosed the name of aoy eye wltness except one bank emptoyee namety Satyanarayan (PW-4). He h3S admitfed the fact that on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant, he was enquired by the Regional Offjce, K. A. R. Baswa (PW-2), the bank manager has stated that on the next day of the Incident the comptainant had informed him about the incident. Aceording to this wftness; there were some dlscrepancies in the bank draft. Sudershan Das (PW-3) is a horsay witness who was Informed by the comptainant about the incident. Satyanarayan (PW-4), the bank employee and independent witness to the incident has not supported the prosecution case and has b^n declared hostile. Narsingh (PW-5), the selzurewitness of Ex.P-3 has not suppoflsfed the prosecution case. Sub In^?ector K. S. Nagar (PW-6 ) had recorded the FIR Ex.P-2. 8. Mlnufe examination of the evidence reflects that there may be some dispute between the appetlant and the complainant but trte evldence does not make out a case under Seetlon 341 of IPC or 3 (1) (x) of the Act, As per the complainant the mcident was witnessed by number of persons includina Satva Naravan W-4^ however the gaid -A"- Satyanarayan has not supported the prosecution case whereas the other independent witnesses have not been cited or examined in the Court. Even in the statement of the complainant thereappears to be material improvement in his Court statement from that of hls FIR and case diary statement. Considering the facts and clreumstances of the case this Court flnds It diificult Co uphold the convtction of the appellant under Section 341 of IPC. So far as sectlon 3 (1) (x) is concerned, admtttedly there is no document on record to show the caste of the complainant and filing of such document is sine qua non to bring home the offence under the speciat provistons especialty when the caste is disputed by the appeltant, therefore itwH) not be safe for thls Court to convict the appetlant under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act anct that being so benefft of doubt must 90 in favour of the appellant. 9. in the result, the appeat is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 10.04.1997 is hereby set aslde. Appellant !s acqultted of the charges levetled against him. Appellant Is on baif. Bail bonds so furnished stand discharged. A^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge >. /