IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of independent and impartial witnesses in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to substantiate claims of public humiliation and intimidation.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.10.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 33/92, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 504 IPC as under :-

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The concise facts of the case are that a First Information Report was registered on the basis of written report filed by complainant Ramesh chandra to the effect that on 04.07.1992 atabout 8:30 PM in the evening, he was going on his tractor to his house. When the complainant reached his house, he found a truck loaded with firewood standing outside his house. The complainant requested the driver of the truck to move his truck. However, the accused started hurling caste oriented abuses and also threatened to kill him.

4. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR was registered about commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused-appellant for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.

6. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.10.1994 acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 341 IPC but convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as stated hereinabove.

7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits complainant Ramesh Chandra was examined as PW/1 and after chief examination, cross-examination was kept reserved but after that Ramesh Chandra was not summoned and he did not appear for cross-examination. It is argued that the learned court below convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of Shankar who was driver of the complainant and so called eye witness Kamla who has been declared hostile. PW/4 Shankar has mentioned that present appellant used abusive language but in cross-examination, he mentioned that there were so many houses nearby but none of the independent witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel also harped upon inconsistencies between the prosecution story and the statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses who reached the place of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst others, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under the SC/ST Act, in particular.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused