ISHWAR SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2009. passed by the Special Judge (under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short, "the Act, 1989") Raipur, in Session Trial No. 36 of 2009, wherein the said court convicted the appellants and under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, 1989 and under Section 294 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each - with default stipulations.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 15-3-2009 at bout 5.00 pm at village Kusumund, Police Station Aarang, District Raipur, the appellants used abusive language against the complainant in public place and intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate him who is a member of Scheduled Caste. The matter was reported to Police During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the CrPC, 1973. After completion of the the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants as mentioned above.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. PW/1 Ratanlal, PW/2 Dukhi Ram and PW/3 Manharan are the witnesses of the incident. As per version of these witnesses, appellants have made some barrier before their house and the Gram Panchayat of the said village was constructing the house for Anganbadi workers and they asked the appellants to remove their barrier that is why the incident took place. The incident did not occur on the basis of caste of the complainant Ratanlal, but it is a case of dispute regarding removal of barrier. Version of Ratanlal (PW/1) is different from version of Dukhi Ram (PW/2) and Manharan (PW/3) because all the three witnesses have deposed different words uttered by the appellants. As the version of these witnesses contradictory in nature and again version of Ratanlal (PW/1) is contradictory to what is mentioned in FIR, it cannot be said that the incident took place to intimidate or insult the complainant Ratanlal, therefore, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 is not established against the appellants.