RAMESHWAR DAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act). He has been awarded a jail sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed. It be seen that six months' rigorous imprisonment is minimum which can been awarded when a person is found guilty of having committed an offence under the Act of 1989.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the story as unfolded by the complainant is not natural and there is variance between what has been said in the complaint - which complaint ultimately formed the basis of the First Information Report - and in the statement of the complainant in Court. It has also been argued that independent witnesses were not produced. The person who is said to have lodged the First information Report has not been brought in the witness box. Before noticing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants the prosecution story in brief be noticed.

(3.) IN the complaint, it is recited that one Gopidas member of Janpad Panchayat, Kamlesh Singh Raghuvanshi, Raghunath and Govinda of village Bagroda were present in the room were Kapoori Bai complainant was sitting. It is stated in the complaint that the appellant came into her office and told Govinda that it is on account of him the appellant is occupying the chair of Chairman of Janpad Panchayat. The appellant referring to the complainant as 'Chamaria'. The exact word which are said to have been used when rendered in English are as under:-