The court emphasized the importance of following the mandatory requirements under Sec. 15-A of the Atrocities Act, which safeguards the rights of victims of caste-based atrocities and witnesses, including the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding, and the right to be heard at any proceeding under the Act.

JUDGMENT

VIBHA KANKANWADI,J. - All these Appeals have been filed by the original accused Nos.1, 5 and 4 as arrayed in the First Information Report (for short "FIR"), under Sec. 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "Atrocities Act"), to challenge the order of rejecting their applications under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ahmednagar. Accused No.1 Amol Babasaheb Sonawne filed application Exhibit-18 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 15/11/2022 by the learned Special Judge. Accused No.5 - Sanket Vitthal Somwanshi filed application Exhibit-3 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 29/8/2022 and accused No.4 - Arun Narad Saha filed application Exhibit-13 in Special Case No.141 of 2022, which came to be rejected on 14/9/2022.

2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the appellants in respective Appeals, learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, appointed through Legal Aid.

3. Learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have vehemently submitted that perusal of the FIR, which is lodged by present respondent No.2, who is the mother of the deceased Pravin, would show that she is not the eye witness to the incident, however, she depended upon the information supplied by one Amol Borde, who was stated to be along with the deceased at the relevant time. There was nothing to indicate that the incident took place merely because the deceased was the member of scheduled caste. Even the tenor used in the FIR does not attract any of the offences described in Sec. 3 of the Atrocities Act. The FIR is lodged after delay of about a day and three hours from the occurrence. The said delay is inordinate, unnatural and unexplained. Now the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is also filed. All the accused have been arrested on 28/4/2022 and since then they are in jail. As the entire investigation is over, their further custody is not required. They have permanent place of abode and they are ready to abide by the terms of the bail. The appellants have cooperated in the investigation.

4. All the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have submitted that from the charge-sheet it can be seen that there was only one eye witness i.e. Amol Borde. He was not attacked at all by any of the accused persons. He was close friend of the deceased and therefore, possibility of giving interested version cannot be ruled out. Even though Amol Borde is claiming that he has tried to intervene and even to snatch the axe, it does not show that it has caused any injury to him. According to his statement under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was a single blow to the head of the deceased with iron rod, which has caused oozing of blood and the said rod has been discovered under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The description does not say that blood stains were found on the iron rod. The medical officer does not say that there was any such injury which can be said to have caused by iron rod. The allegations will also not attract the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the intention or motive is missing. It has been stated that in the afternoon when the deceased and his friend Amol Borde had gone to the shop of accused N.4 - Arun for purchasing Vada-pav, there was altercation between deceased and accused No.4. At that time, it is stated that accused No.1 along with 4 to 5 others gathered there. They had assaulted deceased with kicks and fist blows as well as wooden log. At that time Amol Borde had intervened and thereafter deceased and Amol purchased four plates of Bhaje and ten Pav (bread). It is then stated that cost of the same was Rs.100.00 but in the scuffle the cooking oil spilled from the vessel and therefore, accused No.4 had charged Rs.100.00 more. At that time deceased