The importance of establishing essential ingredients of offences, the need for evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and the weighing of defence evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Godda, in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as under Sections 379, 323, 500 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict is to further undergo separate sentence for six months. The appellant-convict has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and also undergo S.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that it is alleged by the complainant that on 07.10.1997 at 10:45 A.M. when the complainant was in his residence, he was called on by the Assistant of the Police-in-Charge and told that “Sala Harijan Apne Ko Kya Samjheta ho Hamare Bare Me Likha Pardhi Kiye Ho, Mujhe Jante Nahi Ho Aisa Master hum Roj Paida Karte Hai” and thereafter assaulted the complainant by fists and slaps and warned the complainant not to cross through the passage adjacent to the police station campus and thereafter snatched away the wrist watch and took away Rs. 500/- from the pocket of the complainant and also took away his fountain pen and also abused by his caste name and by taking the name of his mother. It is further the case of the complainant that prior to the said occurrence on 01.10.1997 at 10:00 A.M. when the complainant was going to his school where he was working as an Assistant Teacher, the appellant-convict called the complainant to the police station campus without having any reason and assaulted him by slaps and fists and against that, the complainant complained before the higher leaders and officers and due to the same, the second occurrence took place. The complainant filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda and the same was transferred to the court of another Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case against the accused and referred the case to the Special Court constituted under the provision of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 323 & 500 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty and he was put to trial.

4. In support of his case, the complainant altogether examined five witnesses and from the side of the defence, one witness was examined and the station diary entry dated 01.10.1997 which shows that the appellant-convict had gone to a far off place in connection with the investigation of the case from 10:00 hours and 16:30 hours on 01.10.1997.

5. Out of the five witnesses examined by the complainant, CW-1/Gopal Rajak is the nephew of the complainant. He has stated that he was under a Pippal tree and the complainant went to the police station. The appellant-convict abused the complainant by taking the name of his mother and he took way Rs. 500/- and one pen from the upper pocket of the complainant and also snatched away his wrist watch and threatened him not to write against him. He has also stated about the occurrence that took place on 07.10.1997. In his cross-examination, the CW