The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, particularly intent to humiliate and public nature of acts, leading to acquittal.

ORDER :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1.Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh, in Special Session Case No.48/1993 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.1993 complainant Jani gave a written report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and had a house at Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar, where some Babool trees were grown. On 02.01.1993 at about 9.00 accused-appellant trespassed onto her property in Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar and felled several Babool trees. Furthermore, the complaiant stated that the accused- appellant subjected the complainanat to abusive language during the incident. Based on this report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellant and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 447, 427 & 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST Act, were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses viz., DW/1-Kanwarchand, DW/2-Ramchandra & DW/3 Nathulal were examined.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.01.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of an offence under Section 379, 427 IPC so also Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 379, 427 IPC against the petitioner. The prosecution case is solely based on the statement of complainant and Rami Devi, PW/3 who is daughter of complainant. Thus, these witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimony is not trustworthy at all. Another witness is PW/2 Bheru lal is only hearsay witness to whom the complainant allegedly narrated the incident and this witness has only stated what was told by the complainant. So far as the offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the complainant's testimony does not indicate that the appellant used abusive language in a public place with the intent to humiliate her. The counsel highlighted the statement of PW/1, Jani Bai, who stated that the alleged abusive language was hurled in her field (Bada) and no other person was present. It is argued that a private field does not constitute a public place, and further, PW/1 did not explicitly state that the appellant's intention was to humiliate her. Furthermore, the counsel points to the testimony of PW/2, Bheru Lal, who stated that the complainant reported that appellant had uprooted Babool tree from her field but did not mention use of any abusive language. Similarly, the statement of PW/3, Rami Dholi, also lacks any mention of abusive language by the appellant. On the contrary, the counsel emphasizes the statements of DW/1 to DW/3, who unequivocally denied that the incident, as alleged by the complainant. Based on this evidence, it is argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST Act is substantiated against the appellant. Therefore, the impug