BHASHI @ SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bhashi @ Subhash being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganganagar in sessions Case No. 40/1994 whereby, he was convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is totally unjustified. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective. He contended that there are grave contradictions inter se in the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses. The incident took place in two parts. The first informant PWI Major Singh in his testimony did not allege that the appellant abused him during the first incident. The second part of the incident allegedly took place outside the house of Major Singh where both the appellant herein as well as co-accused Ganga Ram are alleged to have hurled caste based abuses towards Major Singh. He submitted that the appellant and Major Singh were not known from before and, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have hurled caste based abuses with the intention of insulting the complainant. He further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted then also, the case involves simple verbal altercation between the parties and no convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. He, therefore, urged that the appeal should be accepted and while setting aside the judgment of conviction, the appellant herein deserves to be acquitted of the charges.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel. He urged that the first informant PW1 Major Singh as well as the prosecution witnesses PW2 Manjeet Kaur and PW3 Jasvir Singh gave clinching evidence to the effect that the appellant hurled caste based abuses the insulting them. Thus, as per him, the finding of conviction and guilt of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence available on record and does not call for any interference whatsoever.