Cognizance under the SC/ST Act was quashed as the allegations arose from a land dispute, not atrocities as defined by the Act, while the cognizance for IPC offences was upheld based on prima facie evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

The present memo of appeal is being preferred challenging the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Darbhanga in G.R. Case No.13 of 2017 arising out of Raiyam P.S. Case No.8 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge by taking different view from the police report, took cognizance against the appellants and issued process for facing trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323, 354-B, 386, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(r)s) of the SC and ST Act.

2. The brief facts of this case as speaks through written information of Shivan Chaupal (informant) that on 10.03.2017 at about 9.00 a.m. while he was sitting at his Darwaja (outer courtyard), Mishri Lal Yadav (appellant No.3) and his son Dheeraj Yadav (appellant no.1) along with 100-150 people started ploughing his residential land by using tractor. When the aforesaid act of appellants was protested by informant, Mishri Lal Yadav and his son ordered to their people that some treatment is required to informant, as he is trying to become a leader by referring the abusive words ‘Sala Harijan Chaupalwa’ and on their saying, Mishri Lal Yadav (appellant no.3), his son, Dharmendra Yadav (appellant no.2), Kishuni Yadav (appellant no.4), Parikshan Mandal, Ram Narayan Mandal, Bishwa Nath Sah, Suresh Mandal, Ram Bilash Mandal, Sobhi Mandal, Hare Mandal, Sukesh Mandal, Pawan Mandal, Shankar Mandal, Lalit Sah, Sujit Sah, Raghunath Thakur and Pintu Thakur variously armed with attacked on him and out of said physical assault, he fell down to the ground. Thereafter, Satto Chaupal (brother), Shanti Devi (wife), Manoj Chaupal (nephew) came running to the place of occurrence and rescued him, upon which, Dhirendra Kumar Dhiraj @ Dheeraj Yadav (appellant no.1) armed with farsa assaulted on the head of his wife due to which, blood started oozing. When his son came to rescue her, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (appellant no.2) armed with farsa assaulted on his head. His brother Satto Chaupal was assaulted by Bishwanath Sah and Ram Narayan Mandal with iron rod. All the accused persons assaulted his family members badly. On hearing the alarm raised by them, villagers came to the place of occurrence, resultantly, the accused persons fled away from there and while running away, they looted different articles form the house of informant worth of Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that Mishri Lal Yadav (appellant no.3) spitted on his wife’s body and threatened to kill entire family members.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written information, a formal first information report was registered being Raiyam P.S. Case No.8 of 2017 dated 10.03.2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323, 354-B, 386, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)s) of the SC and ST Act, 2015.

4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against 13 accused persons, where Mishri Lal Yadav (appellant no.3), Dharmendra Kumar Yadav (appellant no.2), Kishuni Yadav (appellant no.4), Dheeraj Yadav (appellant no.1) and Pintu Kumar (appellant no.5) were not sent up for trial through Charge-sheet No.21 of 2018 dated 31.05.2018.

5. Upon perusal of materials collected during the course of investigation, the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST POA Act), Darbhanga through order dated 24.05.2019 by taking a different view with the final report, issued process against the appellants as aforesaid, against whom the police have submitted final report, not sent up them for trial.

6. It is important to mention that during the pendency of present appeal, charges were framed against the appellants vide order dated 15.09.2022, where Mishri Lal Yadav (appellant no.3) challenged the said order dated 15.09.2022 before this Court through Cr. Revision No.686 of 2022 but, as same was not maintainable, appellant filed an application for withdrawal of the said criminal revision