BHAGIRATHI SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-2-2000 passed by the learned Special Court, Raigarh, in Special Case No. 48 of 1998, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months on each count. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20-2-1998 when the complainant was teaching the students in primary school at Village Laat, at about 11.45 a.m., the accused/appellant forcibly entered into the class room and abused the complainant by caste. On this, the complainant asked the accused/appellant to go away from the school, but he did not heed his words and sat there on a chair. The accused/appellant also threatened the complainant stating that he would be killed on the way to his house. The reason behind the incident was stated to be the interchange of plates (Thali) brought for mid-day meals between the students due to which the teaching work was affected. The complainant lodged a written complaint (Exh. P-1) relating to the incident at Police Station, Chhal, on the basis of which the FIR (Exh. P-2) was registered, the matter was investigated and the accused/appellant was arrested on 28-9-1998.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in its proper legal perspective. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge are contrary to the facts available on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 506(2) of the IPC. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. There is no material on record to establish that the appellant did the act with a view to humiliate the complainant. There is no iota of evidence in the record.