ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-Special Judge, Gopalganj in Gopalganj S.C./S.T. P.S.Case No. 16 of 2018 arising out Tr. No. 97 of 2018 of Gopalganj (S.C./S.T.) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) (w) of S.C./S.T. Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:—

4. On the basis of written statement of informant, the present F.I.R. has been lodged stating therein that on 11.05.2018 his villagers came at about 01:00 P.M. and demolished the house of the informant made of asbestos and took away some asbestos. When the mother of the informant made a protest, she was slapped. It is further alleged that when the informant came to his village and enquired about the matter with the accused persons consequently, the informant was also assaulted by fists and slaps and the accused persons threatened him to kill.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police, after investigation, filed charge sheet on 28.09.2018 against one person namely Radha Mohan Chauhan (appellant no.1) under sections 447, 341, 323, 354B, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(s), 2 IV, VA of the S.C./S.T. Act. He further submits that at the same time, the police submitted final form against other two named accused persons stating that no evidence has been found against the aforesaid two accused persons namely Umesh Chauhan (appellant nos. 2) and co-accused Rama Shankar Giri.

6. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj differing with the police report, had taken cognizance against all the accused persons including the present appellant, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(r) (w) of S.C./S.T. Act.

7. It is also submitted that the present case has been filed to settle the score and teach a lesson to the appellants because the appellants alongwith other villagers have filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Vijaipur for removal of encroachment made by the informant over plot no. 330 which is a road for general public. During the course of investigation, it has come to light that, after measurement being done by the C.O., the C.O., Vijaipur has demolished the encroachment made by the informant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that no offence under different sections of Indian Penal Code and S.C./S.T. Act are being made out. The appellants have no role to play in the incident. Since a public road has been encroached by the informant, the Circle Officer, Vijaipur has taken action against the informant. The appellants and other villagers were complainant before the C.O., Vijaipur and only due to this reason they have falsely been implicated in the present case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Court below has failed to consider the fact that the incident as alleged, even if found true, would not constitute an offence under provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Nothing has been done by the appellants as described in the F.I.R. which can be said to be in a public view. It is also submitted that the informant has also not disclosed his caste name in the F.I.R. Learned counsel though denies the occurrence of the incident however submits even considering the allegations levelled the incident happened at the door of the informant. At that time nobody/no one was present at the place of occurrence. It cannot be said that the incident took place in public view, which is one of the essential ingredient for making out a case under the S.C./S.T. Act.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the investigation by police is als