RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher in Anurag Vidhya Mandir, Nangal Rajavatan, District Dausa against the accused respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 Penal Code and under Sec. 3(1 )(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for short "the Act of 1989" regarding an incident which took place on 22.9.1997.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that some students belonging to SC/ST category who are receiving education in the aforesaid school had gone to take water from Hand Pump near the Temple of Gopalji. The students of the said school were generally prevented from taking water for drinking purposes from the said Handpump for the reason that they belong to SC/ST Caste by accused-respondent No. 2 who belongs to a different caste. As a result of the above incident, some altercations ensued between the students and accused-respondent resulting in complainant-petitioner sustaining some injuries on his person and as a consequence thereof an FIR was registered at the local police on 24.9.1997 by the complainant while the date of occurrence is reported to be of 22.9.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned CJM Dausa who after detailed orders dismissed the same vide order dated 25.7.1998 (impugned in revision).

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examined the finding recorded by the trial Court whereby, the trial court on the basis of the evidence recorded before it had taken the prima-facie view that the accused are not guilty of the offence under Sections 341 and 323 Penal Code read with Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The finding of the trial Court which deserves to be highlighted in the instant case is that the version of the complainant as regards the injuries suffered by him is not supported by any independent evidence. The fact on the record is that PW 4 Paras Ram and PW 7 Laxman Singh who are independent witnesses and who were present at the time of occurrence have not supported the version of the complainant. The complainant had not led any evidence in support of his version as regards the offence committed at the behest of the accused. Consequently, the trial court did not hold the accused guilty of offence by recording a positive findings giving benefit of doubt to the accused.