TIRTHU SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one turns up for the appellants in spite of repeated calls. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Addl. PP for the State.

(2.) This appeal is being taken up for consideration basing upon the materials available in the record. The case of the prosecution in brief as mentioned in the complaint filed by Sham Kanwari Devi, is that on 08.08.1996, the appellants were grazing their cattle in the field of the complainant and when the complainant protested the same, they assaulted the complainant and the appellant no. 1 also attempted to kill her by assaulting with an axe. When the complainant raised alarm, her father, uncle and brother rushed to the place of occurrence and the appellants fled away from there threatening to assault her again. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sent the records to the designated Special Court under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. Upon receipt of the record by the Special Court, charges for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (xi) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed against the appellants. Upon the appellants denying the charges, they were put to trial.

(3.) In support of his case, the prosecution altogether examined three witnesses and from the side of defence, two witnesses were examined. P.W.-3- Sham Kanwari Devi deposed that she belongs to Oraon caste and is a member of the scheduled tribe. The occurrence took place at 12.15 P.M., six and half years prior to her being examined in the court. The appellants were grazing their cattle in her field and she protested that. The appellants assaulted her. The appellant no. 1 removed her clothes and abused her in filthy language. She sustained injuries in her hand and back. She was treated in the hospital. In her cross examination, she has stated that she was treated in hospital on police requisition. She denied having instituted Sisai P.S. Case No. 102 of 1996 for the same occurrence. The appellants are staying in the ancestral land of the P.W. 3 after constructing houses. She does not know whether her father instituted any case for getting back his land from the appellants. In her cross examination she has stated that the appellants are residing at the place of occurrence for three years after constructing their house. The dispute was relating to land. She admitted that her uncle has sold the land to the appellants though his uncle has no right to sell.