Inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence cannot be used to convict and sentence a person, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

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) IPC has been preferred against the order dated 30.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case (SC/ST) No.54/1992, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months simple imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that complainant-Gordhan Ram filed a complaint before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in relation to an incident alleged to have been occurred on 13.09.1990 at about 6:00 p.m., narrating therein that while the complainant was taking water from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused, the accused- appellant hurled caste based abuses against the complainant and drove him out of the hotel; the said complaint was filed on the next date, and not on the very same day.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon after due investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Learned counsel however, submits that against the said negative final report, the complainant filed a protest petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the matter was committed to the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, (Sessions Judge), Balotra.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that after committal of the case, the learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 3(1) (1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial court, without appreciating the fact that the evidences as placed before the learned court were not only insufficient for framing of the charge, but also for the purpose of convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, as above; 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 Gordhan Ram (complainant) and that of PW-3 Narayan & PW-4 Chain Singh. Learned counsel submits that the complainant in his statement has deposed that Narayan and Chain Singh were present in the hotel of the accused when the alleged incident took place and came to the rescue of the complainant at the relevant time; whereas Narayan and Chain Singh in their statement made a deposition that at the relevant time, they were sitting in the hotel of one Karnsingh, which was located near the hotel of the present accused-appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the said Narayan has even discarded his statement given before the police.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also submits that the complainant in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. stated that during the alleged incident, the accused-appellant had asked about his identity, whereas in his cross-examination as PW-1, the complainant deposed that he knows the accused for last ten years; and if it is so, it is highly doubtful that the accused would have asked the complainant about his identity. Learned counsel further submits that since other persons were also taking water from the pot kept in the hotel of the accused without disclosing their respective identity, partic