SHANTI KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant (PW-1) Dhurva by caste falling in the category of Scheduled Tribe was at the relevant time Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The accused/appellant on the other hand are said to be the member of the Bhramin community. Being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat complainant (PW-1) Ganeshram Baghel came to know that water supply in the area was not adequate and on inquiry through members of the locality, he came to know that as accused/ appellant Shanti Kumar Mishra had been operating water up for drawing water, the other people of the locality could not get sufficient water supply. Subsequently, he went to the house of the accused/appellant and on complaint being made as to why he was using the water pump and as such depriving others of water, he got enraged and started using filthy abuses at him and also threatened of doing away with. The other accused persons also joined him in abusing and threatening the complainant. On the report lodged by him offence under Section 341, 342, 294, 506/34 IPC and 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Special Act") were registered against all the accused persons, four in number. After completion of investigation challan was also filed under the same sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 28.10.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2002 acquitted the accuseds Ashwani Kumar Mishra @ Bunty, Suryaprakash Mishra of all the charges leveled against them. The Court below also acquitted the accused/appellant of the charges under Section 341, 432, 506 IPC but held them guilty under Sections 294 IPC and 3 (i) (x) of the Special Act. The sentence imposed on the accused/appellant is RI for 1 month under Section 294 IPC and 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- under the Special Act. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the Court below are not based on the just and proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. He submits that prime requirement for holding one guilty under the Special Act is caste certificate disclosing the caste of the complainant but in the case in hand the same is lacking.