SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment and finding dated 1.7.1992 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District Mandsaur in Special Criminal Case No. 104/91 convicting and sentencing the appellant Promod under section 324, IPC and releasing him on probation as also sentencing appellant Vinod under section 323, IPC; he has also been released on probation and appellant Surendrasingh convicted under section 323, IPC and imposing fine of Rs.300/ ; in default, simple imprisonment for one and half months. Prosecution case in brief was that on 27th July, 1991, while complainant Madanlal (PW 2) was going to Neemuch Hospital in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. to attend his wife Rukhminibai, who was admitted in the hospital on 26th July, 1991 because she was assaulted by the accused persons on that day, was stopped by the accused persons and asked him as to why he lodged report in the police station against them and thereafter they started assaulting him by iron rod, fists and knife. Nandkishore (PW 3), brother of the complainant, was assaulted by the accused persons. Complainant Madanlal (PW 2) lodged report in the police station, Ex. P 4, on the same day at 7.30 a.m. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants for the offence punishable under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act).

(2.) THE trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under section 3(i) (x) of the Act. The appellants abjured their guilt. According to them, due to some previous enmity, they were falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and got proved 8 documents in total.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory on material particulars and their version has not been duly corroborated by the independent witnesses as well as medical report. The counsel further submits that the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR and the witness Manohar Lal was a got up witness. On the other hand, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the trial Court has rightly relied upon the statements of the injured complainant Madanlal (PW 2) and his brother Nandkishore (PW 3).