Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) The accused-appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Special Sessions Case No.14/1993 whereby the learned trial Court after convicting the appellants for offence under Section 323 IPC sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also convicted them for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. It was further ordered that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that complainant-Shri Shivcharan filed a written complaint (Ex.P4) against appellants on 10.9.1992 before Judicial Magistrate, Badi (District Dholpur) for offences under Sections 427, 379, 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3 of the Act with the allegation that in the morning of 10.9.1992 at about 7.00 a.m. when he along with his wife and son was working at their agriculture land, appellants came there armed with Lathis and Hasiya and abused him, his wife and son in filthy language and also abused them with their caste name. It was further alleged that appellants tried to cut their standing crop which was objected by them upon which appellants inflicted injury to the complainant and when his wife and son intervened they were also beaten. It was further alleged that one Shri Ram Khiladi and Ramdayal came at the place of incident and on their intervention they were spared. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellants not only destroyed the crop of complainant but also took away Barley (Bajra) crop. The written complaint so filed by the complainant was sent by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Sarmathura where FIR No.140/1992 was registered for the aforesaid offences on 11.9.1992. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 341, 427 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants for offences under Sections 447 and 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (v) and (x) of the Act and in order to prove the charge prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution but in defence no evidence was produced but during cross-examination statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of four prosecution witnesses were got examined. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 447 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act but convicted and sentenced them as already stated.
(3.) Assailing the findings of the trial Court learned counsel for the appellants inviting attention of the Court towards some of the admissions made by the complainant-PW2-Shri Shivcharan in his cross-examination submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the time of the alleged incident the Nechi situated on the agriculture land of the complainant was in peaceful possession of the appellants for several past years and they were using it to fetch water from their well and, therefore, possibility cannot be rule out that false allegations were made against the appellants in order to pressurize them to hand over possession of the Nechi to complainant. It was further submitted that complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that he wants to close the Nechi and for the same reason dispute exists between them. It was also submitted that there are several material contradictions interse between the statements of prosecution witnesses and they have improved their version of the incident with regard to several aspects of the incident during the course of trial in comparison to their statements recorded during the course of investigation and the facts mentioned in the complaint. It was submitted that in order to make out an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act it is essential that a member of scheduled caste is abused by his caste name with intention to humiliate and embarrass him in a public view but in the present case looking to the place of incident, which is admittedly agriculture land of the complainant, it cannot be said that appellants abused the complainant and his family members with their caste name in public view but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the case in a proper perspective.;