The prosecution must provide reliable eyewitness testimony corroborated by objective evidence to sustain a conviction under the Atrocities Act; otherwise, reasonable doubts favor the accused.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present appellant was the accused No.1 of the trial proceedings before the Special Atrocity Court, Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No.5 of 2007. The trial was under Sections 324 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT (for short ‘B.P. Act’), and even under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”). The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Sections 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and sentenced them with simple imprisonment of six months.

2. The facts of the case, as could be gathered from the record states that on 02.10.2006, on the day of Dashera festival, the complainant - Ajaykumar Kanubhai Chauhan had gone to see ‘Garba’ at 00.30 hours at mid-night, and when he came at Vankarvas, at that time, the present appellant caught hold of him and co-accused – Thakor Ramanji @ Ramalo Sartanji caused injury on his head by inflicting a Dhariya (sickle) blow. It is also the case of the prosecution that two other persons inflicted kick and fist blows. All the accused persons insulted the complainant by his caste.

2.1 The specific charge below Exh.11 drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahesana, Camp at Visnagar refers to the incident of 02.10.2006 being the ‘Dashara’ festival and during the night time in the village ‘Garba’ was in progress and the complainant had gone to the village, to see ‘Garba’. During that time accused, on 03.10.2006 at about 00.30 hours, at the corner of Vankarvas at Upera, came near the complainant and since some dispute arose in the adjoining street, accused No.1 caught hold of the complainant and accused No.2 gave blow on the head with Dhariya and he sustained injury from the pointed edge of Dhariya. It is also alleged that the complainant was given kick and fist blows and therefore, accused had committed offence under Sections 324 , 323 and 114 of IPC. Even the accused were charged that they had insulted the complainant by his caste and therefore, were made to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and further under Section 135 of the B.P. Act for breach of proclamation of the District Magistrate.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P.Raval for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has committed error in convicting the accused, while the appreciation of evidence is contrary to law and unwarranted on record. Mr. Raval submitted that the complainant does not refer to any other person, who had witnessed the incident however, the sister (PW2) deposes as if, she is an eyewitness to the incident, even the father examined as PW-3. The sister came later on and therefore, there were no eyewitness to the incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 03.10.2006 at 00.30 hours.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval stated that the allegations were against four persons, while the charge and the trial were only against two persons. The complainant could not identify rest of the two person