Inconsistencies in witness statements and doubt regarding the incident can lead to the acquittal of the accused, especially under stringent provisions such as the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No.87/92, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month's simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, were sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that complainant-Pratap filed a written report before the Police Station, Doongla, District Chittorgarh, alleging therein that on 18.03.1992 at about 9:00 p.m., on the occasion of Holi Festival, while the complainant went to join the gathering for participating in the customary Gair (used to be played on the day of Holi festival), the accused persons, started abusing him with caste based abuses etc.; not only this, the accused persons also started beating the complainant, and when the complainant's wife (Geeta Devi) and brother (Ekling) came to his rescue, the accused persons hurled caste based abuses against them as well.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that pursuant to the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No.40/92 was registered in Police Station, Doongla, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 323 IPC; after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the aforementioned offences against the accused-appellants before the learned trial court; thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellants for the said offences, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and were thus made to stand the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submits that thereafter, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, without duly appreciating the evidence as placed before it; this is more so when no independent witness was produced and examined by the learned trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant harped upon the inconsistency between the statement rendered by PW-1 Pratap (complainant), PW-2 Geeta (wife of the complainant) and PW-3 Ekling (complainant's brother). Learned counsel also submits that the complainant's brother made a clear deposition that prior to the incident in question, there was a dispute between the accused and the complainant, pertaining to Chajja (Balcony), and also, several times altercations between them took place in regard thereto. Learned counsel thus submits that the said deposition made by the complainant's brother makes it amply clear that the said altercations and dispute have been given a different colour by the complainant party, so as to attract the alleged offences against the accused-appellants; such an illegal act on the part of the complainant, which is clearly discernible on the face of the record, is detrimental to the case of the prosecution, in regard to the conviction of the present accused-appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submits that some other persons were also present at the time of the alleged incident, some of whom have been produced as defence witnesses before the learned trial court, who had made a clear deposition that no such incident, as alleged by the complaint, took place on the relevant day, and thus, the accused-appellants have been wrongly implicated in this case, so as to enable the complainant to humiliate and harass them.

8. Learned counsel for the