SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Hari Singh being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 31.1.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu in Special Sessions Case No. 37/92, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:-- Conviction for Offences Sentence of Fine amount Default Sentences imprisonment Under Section 447 I.P.C. One month's SI Rs. 100/- Ten days SI Under Section 3(1)(x) of 6 months SI Rs. 100/- Ten days SI the SC/ST (PA) Act Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record.
(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that the parties arrived at a settlement during pendency of the trial and thus, the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 325 I.P.C. by attesting the compromise to that extent. However, as the offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not compoundable, the Trial Court has awarded minimum sentence of six months to the appellant on that count. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and the record it is apparent that as per the case set out in the FIR Ex.P/1 lodged by the complainant Jhandu Ram, the accused entered into his house and hurled caste based abuses towards his wife while inquiring about his whereabouts. The star prosecution witness is none else than Mrs. Rajli PW-2, the wife of the complainant, who stated in her examination-in-chief that she was sleeping inside her house, in the afternoon at about 3 O'clock, when Hari Singh came there and hurled caste based abuses and asked as to where her husband was. Her husband came home, on which, Hari Singh gave him a lathi blow and broke his hand. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that Hari Singh hurled general abuses her which were not caste based.;