JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.2011 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (henceforth 'the Act'), North Bastar Kanker in Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 2008, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.7.2005, Complainant Benuram (PW1) lodged a written complaint in police station alleging that 2 years prior to lodging of the complaint the Appellant and co-accused Farasram Kunjam had obtained his rinpustika and thereafter asked him to sign some documents in the bank and also in the agency of tractor without informing him that they were taking his signatures for the purpose of obtaining loan for a tractor. On the basis of said written complaint, offence was registered. During investigation, documents were seized from the bank. Rinpustika was seized from Benuram (PW1). Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, initially a charge-sheet was filed against coaccused Farasram declaring the Appellant and other co-accused S.G. Wankhede to be absconded. Vide the judgment dated 15.4.2009, the Trial Court initially convicted co-accused Farasram for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him with the period already undergone by him and with fine of Rs.500/-. Thereafter, on 28.8.2009, absconded accused/Appellant was arrested and charges under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(ii) of the Act were framed against him. Other co-accused S.G. Wankhede is still absconded.

3. In first round of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In second round of trial relating to the present Appellant, Balram (PW2) was again examined as PW1. N.S. Thakur (PW7) was again examined as PW3. Dashrath (PW11) was again examined as PW4 and one additional witness D.N. Kashyap (PW2) was examined by the Trial Court. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defence. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt. No witness has been examined in his defence.

4. After trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without there being any evidence on record against the Appellant the Trial Court has convicted him. The Trial Court has failed to consider the statement of Complainant Benuram (PW1), who has specifically admitted that he signed all the documents after getting knowledge and reading over of the contents to him and, therefore, it cannot be said that any fraud or cheating was committed by the Appellant before obtaining signatures of the Complainant. It was further submitted that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be said that the Appellant had taken the Complainant to the bank and obtained any signature from him. There is also no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be said that the Appellant took the Complainant to the showroom of tractors and obtained his signatures for purchasing a tractor.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due