The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding the complainant's public duty status, influencing both conviction and sentencing. Mitigating factors warrant reconsideration of incarceration.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.114/1991 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.04.1990, a complaint was lodged by the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), at the Hathi Pol Police Station, Udaipur. The complaint led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 341, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as evidenced by FIR (Ex.P.3).

2.1. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, an investigation ensued, during which Viram Singh was subjected to a medical examination. The medical report revealed that one of the injuries sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature, thereby elevating the seriousness of the incident under scrutiny.

2.2. As the investigation unfolded, it became apparent that the altercation occurred while Viram Singh (P.W.5) was in the discharge of his official duties, which necessitated the amendment of the charges to include offences under Sections 341, 353, and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet encompassing these revised charges was duly filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, from where the case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Ultimately, the matter was adjudicated by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur who vide judgment dated 19.12.1995, convicted and sentenced the appellants as per the details specified in the aforementioned para. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, have filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The leamed Amicus Curlae contended that the trial court's conviction of the appellants is flawed, both in law and on the facts of the case. It is asserted that the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), was indeed a public servant, but this fact has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's own statement places him in the vicinity of "Gundia Bheruji" in Udaipur at the time of the incident, which does not conclusively indicate he was engaged in official duties.

3.1. The learned Amicus Curiae further highlighted that P.W.6, the Investigating officer, during cross-examination, admitted that the assertion of the complainant performing his official duties was merely a suggestion from the accused, and not a fact established during the investigation. Moreover, the defense's argument that the complainant was at the scene to repair a telephone line does not inspire confidence and is liable to be discarded. The failure to investigate or substantiate the complainant's role as a public servant during the incident undermines the prosecution's case.

3.2. Furthermore, the Amicus Curiae submitted that the material on record does not establish any intentional wrongdoing by the appellants. Even if the complainant were engaged in official duties at the time of the incident, there is no evidence to demonstrate any intent on the part of the appellants to harm him. On the contrary, the dispute between the parties a