ATMA RAM @ SURENDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant appeal, the appellant herein has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 165/1994, convicting and sentencing the appellant as below:

(2.) Shri Pankaj Gupta appearing on behalf of Shri M.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the Trial Court for the above offences is totally illegal and unjustified. He urged that the first informant Kalu Ram, husband of the victim Mst. Brahma Devi was working as a labour in the field of appellant's cousin brothers Kishan Lal and Subhash Chand. The appellant and Kishan Lal & Subhash Chand were having long standing dispute going on over property. Thus, they managed to get a false criminal case foisted on the appellant in order to wreak vengeance. He urged that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the sworn testimony of Brahma Devi, any such allegation was levelled that the offending act was perpetrated with the intention of committing such offence on a person belonging to Schedule Caste. Thus, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under the SC/ST Act is totally unjustified. He further contended that the highest allegation of Brahma Devi, in her statement, is that the appellant came to the field of Phusaram where she was working, caught hold of her hand and tried to drag her away. Merely on the basis of such allegations, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Sec. 354 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out. He thus urged that the conviction of the appellant is totally illegal aft contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and should be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel and urged that the learn Trial Court has, after due appreciation of material available on record, reached to a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The findings of the Trial Court cam be said to be a perverse or contrary to the evidence so as to call for interference. He thus urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.