The prosecution failed to prove the charges under the SC/ST Act, justifying the acquittal, while the trial court's decision to grant probation for IPC convictions was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional District & Session Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.73/2011 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and convicted him for offence under Sections 341 , 323 IPC while extending the benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders At.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 19.07.2011, complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the court of MJM, Bikaner to the effect that on 11.07.2011, the accused-respondent No.2 assaulted her and her son while using caste oriented language. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3). Upon which, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent and started investigation.

3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act against the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 10.01.2022 acquitted the accused- respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and convicted him for offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC while extending the benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act . Hence, this appeal on behalf of the complainant/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused- respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and in giving benefit of probation to him for offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC despite the fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Counsel submits that there is ample evidence available on record against the accused- respondent for commission of offence under SC/ST Act . Yet, the trial court did not consider these aspects of the matter and acquitted the accused respondent from offence under SC/ST Act . Further, despite conviction, the learned trial court gave benefit of probation under Section 3 of the Act to the accused-respondent, which is per se illegal. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment may be quashed to the extent of acquitting the accused- respondent from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and to the extent of giving benefit of probation to the accused- respondent for the offences under Sections 341 , 323 IPC .

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and also gone through the entire record.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence against the accused-respondent in respect of the commission of offence under SC/ST Act . While passing the impugned order, learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under SC/ST Act .

9. So far as the benefit of probation extended to the accused-respondent for the offences under Section 341 , 323 IPC is concerned, the learned trial court has held that the accused- respondent has been facing trial since 2011 and there is no other criminal antecedents against him. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly extended the benefit of Probat