For a conviction under the SC/ST Act, the insult must occur in public view; absence of public witnesses negates the charge.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 27.11.2006 passed in SC/ST Case No. 07 of 2004 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 28 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 187 of 2004 by the Court of Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 384 ofIPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 15 days for the charge under Section 341 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 323 of IPC , also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the charge under Section 384 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo further S.I. for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the written report of the informant (P.W.-1) Ram Karan Ram, the then B.D.O. Balumath P.S. Balumath District Latehar dated 02.06.2004 to officer-in-charge P.S. Balumath. It was stated therein that one Sri Jitu Uraon of village Tasatwar was given the work of leveling of earth from Balumath Block and he wanted to do that work but accused Birendra Kumar @ Bablu S/o Lakhan Sao of village Balumath wanted that the said land leveling work would be done by him and for that he committed Marpit with Jitu Uraon, at the office premises of B.D.O. Balumath and due to the said assault, Jitu Uraon became unconscious. It was further stated that the said Jitu Uraon was sent to the Hospital in unconscious position. It was also stated that Jitu Uraon was a member of “Adiwasi”. The informant urged that accused would be legally punished for his work of his assault and also for his attitude of Rangdari.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant, Balumath P.S. Case No. 28 of 2004 dated 02.06.2004 under Sections 341, 323 & 384 of I.P.C. and also, under Section 3/4 of SC/ST Act was registered. After investigation the I.O., has submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of C.J.M. Latehar on 08.07.2004 and accordingly cognizance was taken for the said offences and was further pleased to transfer the case record for disposal in the file of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Latehar and this case was committed to the court of Special Sessions Judge, Latehar for trial of this SC/ST Case on 24.08.2004.

4. Thereafter, charge against the accused (appellant) was framed on 14.12.2004 by the learned 1^st Additional sessions Judge Latehar for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 384 of IPC & under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

5. The defence of the accused was complete denial of allegations and it has further been asserted by the accused that this case is false and he is innocent.

6. The learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant:

8. The learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel-Mr. Rahul Kamlesh appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that although no D.W.s has been examined on behalf of the appellant/accused in his defence but also from prosecution side no independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that he is an innocent person and has not committed any