PAPPU @ NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/accused have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.1.1996 passed by Special Judge (Constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), (In short 'the Act'), Panna, convicting and sentencing to each of them for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act with a direction to undergo for R16 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of depositing the same, further three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 18.9.1993, at about 10.30 in the morning the complainant Mulayam Kori (PW-1) went to his field and saw that the animals of appellant no. 1 under supervision of him are grazing his crops. On asking in this regard from the appellant no. 1 on which, both the appellants taking the name of his caste 'Kuriya' covered under the Act abused him with filthy languages and said that their animals will do this thing. Thereafter, when he was going to village to inform the other persons in this regard then, on the way in front of the house of Lakhan Choubey, again he was intercepted and abused with filthy languages by the appellants and in continuation of it he was subjected to beating with fists and kicks by them. The witnesses Purushottam Chandpula (PW-2) and Guddu Yadav (PW- 4) came their and rescue him. Subsequently, on dated 8.10.1993, a report in writing of this incident was given by him to the Police Station Harijan Kalyan Thana, Panna, on which vide dated 9.10.1993 the Crime No. 25/93, was registered against the appellants for the offences of Sections 341,294,506, 323/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Prior to registration of the offence, the complainant Mulayam was sent to hospital on 8.10.1993 where after his medical examination the MLC report Ex.P./10 was prepared. On advising the X-ray of some injuries, the same was carried out in which no bony injury was found. After holding the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 341,294,506,323/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act.

(3.) SHRI , Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment argued that on proper appreciation of the available evidence, the appellants ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court, but under the wrong premises they have been convicted. In continuation by referring the deposition of Dr. G.P. Singh (PW-7), he said that according to this witness, the medical examination of the complainant was carried out on 8.10.1993 before registration of the offence and the MLC report (Ex.P.10) was prepared. According to such MLC, four contusions were found on the person of the complainant. Out of them, two contusions were found of bluish red colour and as per opinion of the Doctor, the stated injuries were sustained by the victim within 48 hours from the time of his medical examination. In the light of this fact if the case is examined then as per case of the prosecution the alleged incident was happened on dated 18.9.1993 and the MLC was prepared on 8.10.1993 just after near about 20 days, thus the alleged injuries could not be connected with the alleged incident and in such premises, the case of the prosecution is apparently on false pretext. He further said that the original First Information Report given by the complainant in writing to the Police on 8.10.1993, has neither been proved nor marked the exhibit on record. In the lack of proving the original FIR mere on the basis of the report of registration of offence, the appellants' could not have been convicted. He further argued that the caste of the complainant has not been proved by any admissible evidence or by examining the Tahsildar, from whom the alleged Certificate (Ex.P.9) was obtained by the investigation agency. Accordingly, the prosecution has also failed to prove the caste of the complainant covered with the Act. He further said that in any case, keeping in view the previous enmity factors between the parties if the case is examined, then it is apparent from the record that the deposition of the complainant Mulayam Kori(PW-1) with respect of the aforesaid offence of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, is not supported by the other witnesses including the alleged eye witnesses Purushottam Chanpuriya (PW-2) and Guddu (PW-4). With these submissions, he prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellants by allowing this appeal.