JAGDISH Vs. JASPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a complaint under Section 3(1)(viii)(ix),(x), 3(2)(Vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with sections 323,324,504 and 506 IPC before the trial Court by alleging that a civil suit is pending between the complainant and respondent No.2. As per allegation respondents reached towards the complainant's house armed with lathis and iron rods and attacked the appellant herein. He was given beatings and abused by calling in the name of caste. It was also alleged that the applicant was got admitted in the hospital and was medico legally examined by the doctor. A ruqa was sent to the concerned police station regarding the incident and after recording statement of the applicant, an FIR No.238 dated 22.5.2008 was registered under Sections 323,324 and 506 IPC against respondent No.2, his son, brother and nephew but no action was taken by local police. Only proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC were initiated. A criminal complaint was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Charge for commission of offence under Sections 3(1)(viii) (ix),(x), 3(2)(Vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with sections 323,324 read with section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC was framed on 27.7.2002 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The statements of all the accused under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. After hearing argument of learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of evidence recorded before the trial Court, all the accused persons were acquitted of the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 19.11.2008.

(3.) The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court has been challenged on the ground that the evidence produced by the appellant was not appreciated as the appellant was himself examined along with other two witnesses which was further supported by medical evidence. The trial Court has given a wrong finding that because of civil litigation between the parties, the complaint was filed with some ulterior motive. The injuries caused to the complainant have not been considered.