A conviction under the SC/ST Act requires conclusive proof of intentional insult based on caste; mere verbal disputes over monetary issues do not fulfill this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 06.12.1993 passed by learned Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Cases, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 102/93, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The impugned judgment is assailed as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law on record, having been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and applicable legal principles, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

Facts of the Case

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.07.1993, the complainant Shri Taja Ram, resident of Village Sovaniya, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, submitted a complaint before the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara, alleging commission of an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said complaint was forwarded to Police Station Bilara under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon FIR No. 272/93 was registered on 07.08.1993. It was alleged that on 25.07.1993 at about 9:00 a.m., while the complainant was proceeding on foot near Pichhka Kuwa, the accused-appellant Lal Singh obstructed his way, abused him by uttering caste-related derogatory words including “Dhedh”, and assaulted him with fists and blows, thereby humiliating him in public view. It was further alleged that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste, whereas the accused is a member of an upper caste, and that despite the complainant’s attempt to lodge a report on 26.07.1993, no action was taken by the police, compelling him to approach the Court.

3. Upon investigation, the police prepared the site plan and other relevant documents, recorded statements of witnesses, and filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offences under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act before the learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Special Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the complainant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and took the defence that the complaint was falsely lodged due to a monetary dispute, as the complainant allegedly owed him money and, upon being asked to repay the same, implicated him falsely. However, after appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment, giving rise to the present appeal.

4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

5. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration upon the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has meticulously perused the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary.

6. PW-1 deposed that PW-9 Hathi Ram had accompanied him from his house and was present throughout. However, he candidly admitted that this fact was not recorded in his complaint and that he could not furnish any explanation as to why such a vital fact was omitted. The omission of a material circumstance relating to the presence of an alleged eye-witness in the earliest version creates a serious dent in the prosecution story and raises a legitimate doubt regarding subsequent embellishment.

7. PW-1 also admitted that t