PARVAT SINGH Vs. KHANJUWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused has directed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.8.1997 passed by Special Judge, Panna constituted under S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (in short "the Act"), in Special Case No. 133/ 97, convicting and sentencing him in a private complaint filed by the respondent under Section 3(1) (vi) and 3(1) (x) of the Act and under Section 323 of IPC for RI one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in first two counts separately while six months RI in last count with a direction to run the jail sentence concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondent herein filed a private complaint against the appellant contending that on 20.8.1992 at about 1.00 O'clock in the noon he was called by the appellant through one Khunda Chamar at his residence. He went to the house of the appellant where he found him to be under the influence of liquor having a rifle of 315 Bore in his hand and in such a condition the appellant asked him to direct his son to do the Harwahi, a type of bonded labour on his field. On refusing the same by the complainant by giving slaps on his face again asked him for the aforesaid. Again on refusing to do such work by his son he was subjected to beating by means of shoes by taking him from his door to the square of the village and thereafter by abusing him in the filthy language with the name of his caste Chamar and Chamra he was threatened saying that he will make him Chamra and during the course of such beating wear clothes of the complainant were also torn. He was also beaten by the backside of the rifle. Consequently on sustaining the injuries he fail down and became unconscious and after gaining consciousness while he was returning on the way he met to Jangalia Chamar (Panch), whom he apprised about the incident and thereafter due to fear of the appellant he remained in the house of Jangalia where he came to know that appellant went to his residence and threatened to his mother saying that if the matter is reported to the police then he will kill him. Subsequent to that complainant/ respondent went to the police station and gave a report of the incident on 21.8.1992. In such premises also it was stated that appellant is used to get forcefully unlawful labour from the person of SCST by showing fear in their mind and in continuation of such activities the act was committed by the appellant with the respondent. Subsequent to said report when no action was taken by the police against the appellant, even the medical examination of the complainant was not carried out by the police, on which the complainant proceeded to file the instant private complaint. On filing the aforesaid private complaint in the trial Court by adopting the procedure provided under Section 200 and 202 of Cr. P. C. on establishing the prima-facie circumstance of the above mentioned offence against the appellant the cognizance of the same was taken by the trial Court and the presence of the appellant was secured by issuing the summons and in response of summons the appellant appeared before the Court.

(3.) APPELLANT 's counsel Shri Sidharth Datt, after taking me through the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment said that that on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution this was not the case of conviction of the appellant but he has been convicted under the wrong premises. In continuation he said that in any case if it is found that on the date of the incident the appellant asked the respondent to direct his son to do the Harwahi unlawful or forcefully on his filed and on refusing by the respondents for the same if the alleged beating was carried out then mere on the basis of such beating or abusing it could not be assumed or deemed that appellant has committed any of the aforesaid offence of the Act, as such offence is related to the son of the complainant/ respondent who is not examined in the Court, and in such premises the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court. In continuation, he said that the respondent utterly failed to prove the entire alleged incident by independent source of the evidence. Whosoever witnesses have been examined being from the community of the respondent are not reliable. Specifically in view of previous enmity factor between the appellant and respondent without independent corroboration the appellant could not have been convicted. By referring the deposition of P. W. 1 Khanjua, he said that in his entire in chief he has not stated his caste covered under the Act and in the lack of it only on imagination it could not be assumed or deemed that respondent was belonging to the caste covered under the Act. It is apparent fact on record that in order to prove the caste of the respondent no certificate of the appropriate authority has either been produced or proved on record. In such premises the trial Court has committed error in holding that the respondent was belonging to the community covered under the Act. Accordingly if there is suspicion regarding caste of the complainant then the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant and prayed for extending the acquittal to the appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment by allowing this appeal