IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the necessary elements for each offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court must carefully analyze the evidence and legal provisions to ensure a just decision.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No. 25/2009 convicting and sentencing him as under:

Conviction Sentence

U/s. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine to further undergo RI for one month

U/s. 452 IPC Undergo RI for 2 years with payment of fine 500/- in default of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month

U/s. 294 IPC Undergo RI for three months

U/s. 506 Part II of IPC Undergo RI for 6 months

All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution put-forth by the complainant herein is that at the relevant time he was the Sarpanch of Village Bundiya and he used to run the fair price shop and the food grains were distributed in the village as per the instructions. On the date of incident, i.e. 5.10.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant entered the house of the complainant and started hurling filthy abuses by the name of his caste to handover the fair price shop to him. Apart from this, the accused/appellant also threatened the complainant of life as a result of which he underwent humiliation and mental agony. At that time, son of the complainant who was present there, caught the appellant and moved out. The incident was witnessed by Rajkumar. Written report Ex.P-1 was lodged at AJAK against the appellant under Sections 294,506 and 452 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter on 21.12.2008, the appellant was arrested and arrest memo Ex.P-5 was prepared. After completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 452 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. This apart, two defence witnesses have been examined.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that learned Court below has committed an error of law in passing the judgment impugned holding the accused/appellant guilty under the Special Act. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant. He submits that Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted against him but yet the Court below has not considered this lacuna on the part of the prosecution and erroneously held him guilty under the Special Act apart from certain sections of the Indian Penal Code. He also submits that the intention on the part of the accused/appellant to humiliate the complainant knowing him to be a member of Scheduled Tribe community has not been established by the prosecution and therefore also his conviction is bad under the law. Hence, the appellants have been falsely implicated.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued the case in support of the impugned order of the Special court. He submits that the contents of the FIR are corroborated by the statement of the witness (Raj Kumar-PW-2) recorded during investigation making out the basic ingredients of the offence and there was no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Complainant Roop Sai (PW-1) has stated that apart from being Gond by caste, falling in the Scheduled Tribe category, he was the Sarpanch of village Bundiya as