PPLCA oinan NOCNT N—APPLIA IN THE HH IG COURT OF CHHATTGAH ISR AT BILASPUR a1t lng Gon /o axma mh Gond by Caste ST age bou r R onumunda, Dewarpara, P. Kotwali Dstt. Raiarh C.G.. Halr Lamu aav, s rilocan Yadav ae- about 2' ea tma Ram ,Yaav, o anu am Yadav age aout 52 e tma:r aed aout 24 yes . r1shna Krisna umar S ,, atma Ram Yadav aged aout 9 years n: 1swal, age aou year. arshal Raia, So. Parma athiya, age, bout 30 yea C 3E 6 R.R.EV. No. 0 ’ 200 RIMINAL ESION R SECTIN 3901 F HE 'dha @ b Yd /o., Th , gd 3 yrs . A d S/ Nhi‘ R d b 1 yars t aa am Yadav . Vashlsh Ydv R , ar e K @ h K /o A b 1 ' . S / 'ushll Kumar So AINT Cmplat VERSUS 1. Ll Sh d S Ln Sg d at 50 yeas /o S S. , i g () C RVI UNDE O 7/4 O T CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. S/o Aa g b ‘. Nilmai Vh d bt 25 s . Dr thy / R d a rs. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION397/40l OFVTHE ‘ ODE OF CRIMINAL P C R HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH 5"}? £ILAS?i3R ' SB : EGIW’BLE MR. JEESTKEE PRI’E‘EEKER DIWAKER ca.m€‘rm. sgzmses Laiit Sirigh Gcnéi $PPLICAE€T SPGNgENTs ‘ Haldhar @ Lam‘bu Yadav &. Others. CRKMENAL REVI$ION UNEQER SECT§G§§ 39’? READ WETH SECTEDN 4§1 OF THE CODE OF CRIMIHAL PROCEDURE Aggearance: Shri Maimj Kumar Smha: counsei for ihc: ap‘giicant. $hri Roop Najk, counsal for ths non‘apjgkcants No‘l to ’6. QRAL QRBER £12. 1 1.2Q0g} The present revision is directai a aimst tha impugae‘i udgment dated 16.2.2006 passed by Speciai Jmige, ajgarh in Special Case No. 5/2004 whereby the accused/respondents N0.L to 6 have been acquitted of the charges leveled agamst them under Sections 148,506{B), 149, 294/ 149, 427,342,323/ }49 of the Endian Penal Code 81, nder Section 3 {1){x} of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevenfion of Atrocities) Act. I 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 5. 1 1.2009, a written report EXP-3 was lodged by the comgkainant namely am singh (PW-3) alleging in it that on 5. 1 1.2002 when he was halvesting the crop in his field aiong mm other abourers, at about 12 in the noon, the non-applicant No2 Amaram 8r. his two sons namely Basir 6:; Vishnu came there nd asSaulted hitn with club, chain 8r, sword.’ it is fnrther i/’ aalleged‘ that the complainant was abused and somehow he ‘ V could escape from the clutchesof the accused nersons. After investigation the police has filed challan not only against RE j R u L l a on 1 e€ e c§an no 111 Aara bu t e e se pe and n Chalan ava‘ has, bea e amSt ‘l n} 8a as. ha axamineoas man s 3 wisss mluding £1 th compiuan‘t it i PA-3, Stemxx o hs ccussc wsrs o cordad ion 313 C in wich hf d€md xgo ve? agm t ar edo 330 nuo m me base S a 0 s th uilt f tbs cci} psecuion $ y a 1 mes- c 12.”: of € ia Lal Sngh RK taet f f ai als re mickr Sect r P ‘ h tv e the chas lekx st hem id piad 11100616: anti false nyhca‘n Af ea c fo ps m: C mte he acc e—ca tho fees a nu b nc ns ww icr hnng omma} r “do air, 14 tn’a} ouri‘ acqtd t uuori/ glnaophn s of ofnc s mooned aove. Hee tl rosn. ntentoo of tho cse for h appnt is at as er o st men o s 1 1s ar a Maxn {—) sfe mn on te ak f bo d lwise imi muuy a t y 16 xij.an g (L-. H mhr uit ha fe p m a o: f Dr 'Vi M Was P W 1 1t appent tht. ha P.W.5 has uired abras h bc side ohis dy aa ike siar r ws susajnad b 01 Bbh Sinh REA5} a fte sbms tt as h yiiilant Lah n biong Sh T ws aus hi ast ll refom Ta accuad mh ha coma ‘t Sigh ss to c‘edukid riba, he a \ b icto nd tion )(X) of th ST oan convd uer Sec 3 (1 e SC] (Prve o Atroiti) Act t th W4 ention 'f ces . He submis at P,.~ Shnkar Sinh l de the mil semt rgarng the abes and ass d b he ccu a g has aso ma siar taten ecii us the ault mae y t ased pe ccdin to h W5 kh PW6 rsons. Aorg im, P..— Maail 65 ..- Brij‘ha h so mae siiar em oil Smg has al d im statent our. Sr Aj i, L. f th te as so aste h Ct O re ha-h‘ Roo unsel no-ppicant ‘ pp h ubs mie by e coLmel for the appht ad ubmlts that th acm‘t of th accuse ps 1s tnctly 1n coeance wx’ law I h hea cose or e parti lt; ave rd unl f th es at engh n the o‘hr ndSn p Naik,‘ co for the nals No, 1 to 6 has oosed te smision as at th s can n s e qal e d erson s acr th mm gngatl L6 pok has Ed ha t 0} agamat tmm ? amo agams th oth} awud rsons o l Whatfso n md ga Vs in Bir o s t garov s. g o acusa rot Coi ounl to iic‘a th bad by s ce ad the h s igt to ve hi it Sngh P or e Sfa h al sisd te 9. k1 the FIR the allegations have been made Only against non—apph'cant No.2 Atmaram and his tWO sons namely Basir and Vishlm Whereas they have not been made accused. Apart from Atmaram, five other persons have been arrayed asaccused Whereas there is no reference to these persons in the FIR. All of a sudden their name comes in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the court statement of some of the Witnesses. 10. So far as the injury part, is concerned, it is not clear from the evidence of the witnesses that as to which injmy has been caused by which of the accused. No specific allegation has been made against any particular accused that it is he who had caused the injurv. Moreover the doctor PW 11 has categorically stated that the myunes sustained by Makhan {P W 5} and Bmbhan Smgh (P W 6) _‘ could have been caused on account of iallmg also. Accused Atmaram, Vashisht, Krishna, Sushi} Kumar 85 Darshan are said to be of Scheduled Tribe and thus the pmvisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not attract against them. Likewise, the incident is said. to have taken place i the field of complainant Lalit Singh and adjacent to his field the field of non-applicant No.2 Atmaram is lying. Thus it cannot be said that the incident was Withm the public View It has also been admitted by the complainant that there is s \ ome land dispute between the parties and proceedings under $eCtiou ,145 Cr.P.C. are pending. It is also clear from the record that the dispute between the parties had taken place and there is some dispute in respect of harvesting the crop. It is not clear from the evidence that the abusiv language was used with an intention to insult a person of a particular caste If such abusive language is used as a common parlance Without any intention to insult someone die prov1s1ons of gection 3 (l)(x) of the SC} ST (Prevention of n e Atrocitiss) Act would not attract in the case 1ike th€ pesant r 1. From the recoré it is also ciear that Jaipal P.W.-2 who was the indapendent eyewitness of the incidsnt has not supportsd the prosecution case. Further, seizure witness' Roopdhar (P.W.-8) 85 Pavitra Kumar (P.W.-10) have also not supported the prosecution case. It is also alleged by th prosecution that one Rakesh was megahy'detained by the accused persons Whereas the said Rakesh has not been examined. 12. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, it is apparent that there istotal inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses and in the court, the prosecution witnesses have exaggerated their version. The entire evidence available on record has been considered by the court beiow and the court below has acquitted the accused persons. fvwxV 13. After perusing the evidence and keeping the legal position in mind that in a revision against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecun’on and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of th View that the judgment impugned acquitting the non— applicants of the offence as alleged against them is just and proper having no room for interference in this revision. Revision is accordingly dismissed. .7 7i; . g; Primer sd]- Diwak erV 5 . .‘.‘.‘. Judge 1 i N 1 e e a-