Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.P. Shukla, learned Counsel for the appli cants and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the applicants Sri Krishna, Satish Chandra, Anshu, Pandit Parshu with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 2 of 2009 dated 21.1.2009 in case crime No. 340 of 2008 un der sections 323, 504 and 506 and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act P.S. Rampura District Jalaun. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Mata Prasad on 23.11.2008 in respect of the incident which had occurred on 21.11.2008, the FIR was lodged in case crime No. 340 of 2008 under sections 323, 504, 506 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act District Jalaun, in the said incident. Arvind and Mata Prasad has sustained injuries and they were medically examined on 22.11.2008 at P.H.C. Rampura District Jalaun, after investigation the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2005 has been forwarded to the Court of learned Magistrate t concerned who has taken cognizance on 3.3.2009 being aggrieved from the charge-sheet and the cognizance order dated 3.3.2009, the present application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the same. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that on the basis of allegations made in the FIR no offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is made out because the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not attracted only because the first in formant was belonging to the scheduled caste, after the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. The investigation done by the I.O is illegal and the learned Magistrate concerned has committed manifest error by taking cognizance of such charge-sheet in support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the applicants cited the case of Ramdas and others v. State of Maharastra 2007 (2) SCC 170 = 2007 (57) ACC 471 (SC) = 2007 (49) AIC 418 de cided by the Apex Court and emphasis has been given on paragraph 11 of the judgment which reads as under : "11. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under section 3(2)(y) of the Sched uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ' 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps per suaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under section 3(2)(v) of the Sched uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, must, therefore, be set aside."
(3.) THE next case cited by the appli cant is Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and others, JT 2008 (9) SC 543 and emphasis has been given in para 8 which reads as under : "In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No. 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act the complaint ought to have alleged that the ac cused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Sched uled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or in timated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within a public view in the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a mem ber of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he inten tionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the com plaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to com pel the appellant to face the rigma role of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the medical examination report are not reliable because the injured Arvind was medically examined on 22.11.2008 at 4.15 p.m., in jured Mata Prasad on 22.11.2008 at 4.00 p.m. both have sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object duration was about 1 day old, whereas according to the prosecu tion version injuries were caused on 21.11.2008 at about 12 O'clock day, accord ing to the nature of the injuries, injury Nos. 3 and 4 of the injured Arvind were radish colour, contusion and the injury Nos. 1 and 2 of the injured Mata Prasad were blueish colour contusion, such injuries according to the medical jurisprudence may not be one day old because according to the medical jurisprudence of Modi the age of a bruise may be ascertained from the colour changes which its ecchymosed undergoes during absorption. These colour changes are due to disintegration of the red blood cells and staining of the thus set free hae moglobin by the action of enzymes from tissues. They commences at the periphery and extend inwards to the centre. They are red at first but during the next three days they appear blue, blueish-black, brown or livid red, and become greenish from the fifth to the sixth day, and yellow from the seventh to twelfth day. This yellow colour slowly fades in tint till the fourteenth or fifteenth day.;