LAXMI BAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17.02.2005 Amardas (PW-1) had given a type written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg to the effect that near his residence at Bheem Nagar, Supela (Bhilai) there was a public tap and where his family and also the family of the accused used to fetch water. The complainant also states that on different occasions the present appellant used to abuse his wife and daughter calling them Chamar and saying so they also used to deprive them of fetching water in the public tap. Earlier to this also a report to this effect was given to the Special Police Station, Durg mentioning all these overt acts of the accused/appellant and also her husband but as no action thereupon was taken, type written complaint (Ex.P-1) was required to be made. The type written report also says that the husband of the accused/appellant herein namely Bhagwaniram who was also accused in this case but has been acquitted by the Court below, also used to abuse filthily at PW-1 and packed the water pit situated near his house. The accused is also stated to have indulged in manhandling with Savita Khare (PW-4) at the public tap. Subsequently, in pursuance of the written complaint an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the version of the complainant was correct and based on that FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered on 02.03.2005 for the offences under Sections 294 IPC and 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for brevity the "Special Act" ). After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant herein as also against her husband under Sections 294 IPC and 3(1) (x) and 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act.

(2.) Learned Court below by its judgment dated 31.03.2006 passed in Special Case No.27/2005 acquitted the accused namely Bhagwaniram but at the same time held the accused/appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 294 IPC and 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act imposing the sentence of RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 294 IPC and RI for 6 years with fine of Rs.500/- under both the sections of the Special Act referred to above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that while holding the accused/appellant guilty under the provisions of IPC as also the Special Act as referred to above, learned Court below has not considered the evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective. He submits that even the caste of the complainant party has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts as the person issuing the caste certificate (Ex.P-4) does not appear to be competent one for the said purpose. He further submits that keeping in mind the exaggerations contained in the evidence of the witnesses, the same is required to be overlooked and the accused/appellant be given the same benefit like the co-accused Bhagwaniram for the reason that the case of the two rests on the same piece of evidence.