PREMNARAYAN RAMPRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeing aggreved by the judgment dated 3-3-1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 487/92 by lllrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur whereby the appellants were found guilty lor the offence punishable under S. 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act and under S. 323 of IPC and were sentenced lor six months rigorous imprisonment and line of Rs. 50/~ and one months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/- each, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief was this that on 3-1 1-1992 at about 9.00 a.m. when complainant-Narayan was working at his agricultural field then appellant No. 2- Roshan came there eith his bullock and tried to pass through the field of complainant-Narayan. Complinant objected then appellant-Roshan used filthy language and called him "Bhangad." His brother appellant No. 1-Prem also came there to caught hold of the complainant and then appellant- Roshan caused simple injury to the complainant by means of a 'Pirana' thereafter both the appellants fled away from there. Complainant lodged report Ex. P2 at Police Station Kalapipal regarding the incident. The matter was investigated and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the present apf ellants before learned Magistrate who committed the case for trial to Special Judge and IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge. Appellants, before trial Court, abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. Learned trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and after giving opportunity for defence evidence, by the impugned judgment, found appellants guilty, and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Shri Sidldiqui submitted that in the facts of the case offence punishable under S. 3(i)(x) of the: SC/ST Act is not at all made out as the necessary evidence in this regard is totally missing in this case. He has further submitted that though the alleged place of incident was open field of complainant-Narayan P.W. 2 but at the time of incident as per prosecution story itself nobody else, except complaiinant-Narayan and present appellants, was present there. It has further been submitted that as per FIR Ex. P-2 one Jaswant was the person who came there with his bullock and abused complainant and called him "Bhangad." Name of appellant-Roshan as ;a person who abused complainant and insulted him, has not been mentioned in the FIR It has further been submitted that initially offence has been registered against, Jaswant s/o Ramprasad and appellant No. 1-Premnarayan s/o Ramprasad, but subsequently, at the place of Jaswant, appellant No. 2-Roshan s/o Ramprasad was prosecuted without any basis. It is also contended that there are variance between the statement given by complainant-Narayan P.W. 2 in the Court and his earliest statement recorded in FIR Ex P-2. It is also contended that so far as appellant-Premnarayan is concerned as per prosecution story itself he came to the spot later on when called by Jaswant and he had not said anything in- sulting complainant in the name of his caste. Therefore, on the basis of all these submissions learned counsel for the appellant urged that, learned trial Court committed an error, in finding appellants guilty for the offence punishable under S. 3(i)(x) of the Act.