GOVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By way of this appeal, the appellant Govind Singh has approached this Court being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.7.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 32/1993 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and giving him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 4,000.00 and the surety of the like amount for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of two years.

(2.) Shri Charan, learned Counsel representing the appellant urged that the F.I.R. was filed after a significant delay of more than 3 days. Two persons namely the appellant herein and Budh Singh allegedly, abused and insulted the complainant on the ground of his caste. The police, did not find the case proved against Budh Singh and accordingly, charge-sheet was filed only against the appellant herein. There is a significant contradiction in the allegations as set out in the written report (Ex.P-1.) submitted by Achla Ram and his sworn testimony. So far as the offences under the Penal Code are concerned, the complainant has already executed a compromise with the complainant. Therefore, he urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is per se unjustified and the appeal deserves to be accepted.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel. He contended that the complainant has given sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the report itself. Respectable persons of the village, restrained him from filing the report under the pretext that they would penalise the accused. However, no such action was taken. Thus, the complainant was held back and could not file the report promptly. He further urged that the so-called contradictions pointed out by the appellant's Counsel in the prosecution evidence are insignificant and trivial and merely because of such minor contradictions, trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted or discarded. However, on the issue that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused so far as the offence under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor did not controvert the said submission.