STATE OF M P Vs. BAHADUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State against the judgment dated 8.8.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Panna, constituted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in short "The Act", in Special Case no. 53/97 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 22.3.1995 at about 6 O'clock in the evening at village Gadarpur when the complainant victim-Smt. Rajkumari was cleaning her house, the respondent no. 1-Bahadur Singh came there and after holding her hand with bad intention asked her to go with him inside the godown. On which she cried and shouted then her husband Kallu, (PW-2) and his elder brother Kripal (PW-3) came there, on which the respondent no. 1 started to abuse with filthy languages to the prosecutrix as well as her husband and said Kripal. By the time other brothers of respondent no. 1 namely Malkhan Singh and Darshan Singh, respondent nos. 2 and 3 came there and threatened the victim, her husband and his brother with criminal intimidations to kill them. The incident was witnessed by Rajaram, Siyaram Patel, whom the earlier story was also narrated by the complainant. Thereafter she accompanied with her husband came to the Police Station-Ajaygarh where on her report in writing (Ex. P-1) a Crime No. 33/95, (Ex. P-2) was registered against the respondents for the offence of Sections 354 and 506/ 34 of IPC. In the course of investigation, offence of Section 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act were also invoked. On completion of the investigation, the respondents were charge sheeted. After committing the case to the Special Court, on framing the charge of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act against the respondent no. 1 while the charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the remaining respondents, they abjured their guilt, on which the trial was held. On appreciation, the respondents have been acquitted from all charges of Act, on which the State has come to this court with this appeal to hold the conviction against the respondents for the alleged charges.

(2.) Shri Rakesh Kesharwani, learned PL after taking me through the record of the trial court by referring the depositions of the prosecutrix, her husband so also other witnesses said that prosecution had successfully proved the case but on consideration its evidence was not considered by the trial court with proper approach. On proper appreciation, the respondents ought to have been convicted for the alleged charges. In continuation, he said that in any case for the sake of arguments on re-appreciation of evidence if it is deemed that the alleged act was not committed by any of the respondents with intention to humiliate or harass the prosecutrix, her husband or his brother on account of their caste covered under the Act, then in view of the language of the charges framed against the respondents, on considering the available evidence of the prosecution, the offence of Section 294 of IPC is made out against all the respondents while in addition to it, the offence of Section 354 of IPC is also made out against the respondent no. 1 and prayed to convict the respondents accordingly by allowing this appeal.

(3.) Responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri Arun Kakoniya, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the approach of the trial court extending the acquittal to the respondents from the alleged charges does not require any interference at this stage on two counts, firstly such version being based on proper appreciation could not be interfered by re-appreciation of the evidence to adopt some other view at the stage of appeal. Secondly, he said that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove by any documentary or other reliable evidence that the complainant-Rajkumari and her family members were belonging to such community which is covered under the Act. In the lack of such evidence, the respondents could not be convicted under any of the offence of the Act. In continuation he said that in the lack of framing any specific charge of Section 294 and 354 of IPC against the respondents, mere on the basis of language of the charges framed such charge could not be deemed to be the charge of Section 294 or/and Section 354 of IPC. Thus, they could not be convicted under such Sections. He also argued that in case the Court comes to conclusion that offence of Section 294 and 354 of IPC are made out against them, then in that circumstance taking into consideration the compromise applications filed with the joint signatures of the parties, which have been verified today by the court, such offences being made compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., by allowing the compromise, the respondents be acquitted from such charge accordingly and prayed to decide this appeal accordingly.