The evidence must prove incidents beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies and contradictions in testimonies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 7/2010. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 388/2012 are original accused nos.1 and 2 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 395/2012 are original accused nos.3 and 4. In this judgment, they would be referred by their nomenclature as accused with their number.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced accused nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer RI for fifteen days each. Learned Judge also convicted accused nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act” for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer further RI for one month each.

3. BACKGROUND FACTS :

The informant, at the relevant time was working as an Education Officer at Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The prosecution case, which can be unfolded from the report is that on 13.09.2010 at about 3.30 p.m., the informant was busy in his official work. At that time, the other officials were sitting in his chamber and discussing the official matter. While this discussion was going on, his peon Sanjay Chandpurkar came with a chit for appointment sought by accused nos.1 and 2. They wanted to meet the informant. On instructions of the informant, Peon told them to wait for some time. It is alleged that accused nos.1 and 2 and other two persons forcibly barged in the cabin of the informant. They made an inquiry with the informant about the approval/permission for appointment of the staff in their institution. The informant told them that as a complaint was pending against the Secretary before the Charity Commissioner, it would not be possible for him to give permission for appointment of staff. It is stated that, therefore, the accused got annoyed and abused him by his caste by saying that ‘you are ‘gond’ by caste, you are not capable of handling the responsibility, you should leave this job.” While this incident was going on, one Babasaheb Deshmukh and Virkhare were present in his cabin. The informant immediately went to the office of the Chief Education Officer for a meeting. After attending the meeting, he had to go to Mumbai for attending some work. On the date of the incident, he left the office and in the night went to Mumbai. He came back on 15.09.2010 and then reported the matter to the police.

4. On the basis of the report (Exh. 34), a crime bearing No. 27/2010 was registered against the accused persons at Police Station, Sadar, Nagpur. PW8 ACP Anant Thorat carried out the investigation. The investigation culminated in filing of the charge-sheet against the accused.

5. Learned Judge framed the Charge (Exh.24) against the accused persons. The accused pleaded not guilty. Their defence is of false implication on account of previous enmity of accused nos.1 and 2 with the informant. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined nine witnesses. Learned Judge, on consideration of the evidence held the accused guilty and sentenced them as above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the accused preferred these two separate appeals.

6. I have heard Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 388/2012, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned a