DHRUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.5.2000, passed in Trial No. 43 of 2000 by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Siwan by which all the appellants have been convicted under Section 3(i)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) to undergo R.I. for 2 years. Appellant no. 3 Harendra Singh has further been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for 1 year. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have further been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for 6 months. They have also been convicted under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been imposed. All the appellants have to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act and in default of the payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

(2.) THE occurrence took place on 1.1.1995 at 6 P.M. Arjun Ram the informant has stated that he along with Bijli Ram and Mukul Ram were returning on their bicycles after purchasing fertilizers. Mukul Ram was left behind whereas Bijli Ram and the informant reached Bhagwanpur village, where they saw the appellants except for appellant Harendra Singh waiting for them with Lathis in their hands. It is alleged that they began to assault the informant as well as Bijli Ram with Lathi. In the meantime, Harendra Singh came armed with a knife and assaulted Mukul Ram on the back who had reached the place of occurrence. The motive for the occurrence is that about a few months back one Baliram Singh of Bhagwanpur village had been beaten to death by the villagers which resulted in a criminal case as well as proceeding under Sections 107 and 116 of the Indian Penal Code. It is said that it was due to this reason that this occurrence took place.

(3.) THE facts disclose that the informant and others were neither insulted nor humiliated by the appellants. In fact the cause of occurrence as disclosed by them is that there was ill-will because the villagers had killed a person from the appellants village. Even during the trial, the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that there was any element of humiliation or intimidation to the members of the Scheduled Caste i.e. the informant, Bijli Ram and Mukul Ram. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellants cannot be held guilty under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act. On perusal of the facts, it would appear that the injuries are simple and superficial in nature and thus, it would appear that the sentence imposed under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on appellant no. 3 is not justified. There was neither any intention to kill nor was the injury of such a nature that would indicate the motive of the person inflicting the injury which would justify the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court has certain doubts regarding the evidence of the doctor. P.W. 4 Bal Kishun Ram who is neither mentioned in the First Information Report nor examined during the investigation has purportedly received injuries in the said occurrence. It is strange that the Investigating Officer did not examine him and that the informant has not said a word regarding his presence in the First Information Report. Even in Court Arjun Ram does not mention anything about the presence or the injury of Bal Kishun Ram. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to rely on the injury report produced by the prosecution vis-a-vis Bal Kishun Ram. Infact the injury report of the doctor as a whole would be put under question. Considering the aforesaid facts and that fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1995, this Court finds itself unable to uphold the conviction of the appellants and acquits them as the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.