The absence of evidence for abusive language led to acquittal under the SC/ST Act, while the sentence under IPC was reduced to time already served due to prolonged trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 25.03.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.170/1994 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.1992, complainant Veerpal Kaur submitted an oral report at Police Station Rawla alleging that today at about 11 AM she was going towards pond for fetching water to the cattle. On her way to pond, the accused Devi Singh & Amar Singh blocked her way, Amar Singh held her hand and made dirty gestures thereafter, she freed her hand and went to her sister Malkiyat Kaur’s home. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused appellants and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for offence under Sections 341 & 354 read with Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 25.03.1995 convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to the perusal of FIR (Ex.P.1), no allegation has been made out against the appellants for using abusive language with the complainant. The complainant Veerpal Kaur (PW.1) has admitted in her cross-examination that no abusive language has been used by the appellant and the usage of same is not even mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P.1). Counsel submits that Gurmeet Kaur @ Malkiyat Kaur (PW.2) has been declared hostile and Jal Kaur (PW.3) & Kapur Singh (PW.5) have also not mentioned about usage of abusive language in their statement, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act is not been made out against the appellants. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1995 and the accused appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about 27 days, out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants.

10. According to FIR, no usage of abusive language by the accused-appellants with the complainant has been mentioned. The complainant (PW.1) in her cross-examination also mentioned that no abusive language has been used by the accused-appellants and other witnesses i.e., PW.2, PW.3 & PW.5 also did not mention the use of abusive language in their statement. In these circumstances, offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act is not made out against the accused-appellant and he