PREMPRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted for offences under Ss. 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989') by the Special Judge under the Act of 1989, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No.67/2019 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 2/4/2022, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rs. additional rigorous imprisonment for ten days; rigorous imprisonment for three months; and rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rs. additional rigorous imprisonment for ten days, respectively, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12/9/2019 at 9 p.m. the appellant abused victim/complainant Chhabilal (PW-1) in filthy language and threatened his wife Neerabai Rathiya (PW-4) to commit her murder and also caused grievous hurt to complainant Chhabilal (PW-1) knowing fully well that they are members of Scheduled Tribe and thereby committed the offence. Chhabilal (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Surendra Kumar Paikra (PW-6) vide Ex.P-9 and he was advised for x-ray. He was subjected to x-ray and as per the x-ray report, he suffered fracture of lower third of left ulna bone, but the radiologist who prepared the x-ray of the complainant was not examined and on the basis of the report submitted by Dr. Surendra Kumar Paikra (PW-6), the appellant was convicted for offence under Ss. 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 holding that fracture of lower third of left ulna bone was found.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Radiologist / Lab Technician, who conducted x-ray of the victim / complainant Chhabilal (PW-1), has not been examined and merely on the basis of the x-ray plate which does not bear name & address of victim Chhabilal (PW-1), report has been prepared which has been acted upon. He would further submit that the Radiologist / the person who conducted x-ray ought to have been examined to hold that the victim / complainant has suffered fracture within the meaning of Sec. 320 Seventhly of the IPC so as to convict the appellant for offence under Sec. 325 of the IPC and as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal under Ss. 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989.