Conviction under IPC Section 504 and SC/ST Act overturned due to lack of provocation and insufficient evidence supporting legal criteria.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2012 arising out of Sadar (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2245 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and under Section 3(i)(vi) of the SC/ST Act and has been sentenced to undergo S.I for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I for 1 month for the offence under Section 3(vi) of the SC/ST Act. He has been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 1 month for the offence under of the . Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 by the informant Dr. Rajnikant Tirkey, Regional Director, Veterinary Department, Hazaribag on 28.06.2008 before the Officer-In-charge, SC/ST Police Station, Hazaribag.

The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant received a call on 28.06.2008 at around 09.00 a.m by a lady from Mobile No. 9334427209 that her dog is ill and he was supposed to visit him at her residence, which is situated at 5^th House from Circuit House, but the informant responded that at that time, he does not work as a Veterinary Doctor as he was engaged in administrative work, so he will send some other doctor for her help. Immediately, he called up Dr. Devendra Nath Dwivedi, the Mobile Veterinary Doctor, Hazaribagh over phone and informed for the treatment of her dog. But again, at around 09:05 a.m., the informant received a call from some male person who introduced himself as some Mishra and started abusing him by addressing his caste in filthy language and further threatened that if he is not going to give treatment to their dog, he is going to break his leg and hand and will also have to face dire consequences. After his phone got disconnected, the said female at around 09.08 a.m. started abusing him over the call.

4. On the basis of the written report, case was registered as SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 dated 28.06.2008 under Section 384 ,504 of the IPC read with Section 3(vi) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

5. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted the chargesheet against the appellant. Thereafter cognizance has been taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

6. Accordingly, the charge under Sections under Section 384 ,504 of the IPC read with Section 3(vi) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act were explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate the allegations altogether four prosecution witnesses have been examined:

I. P.W.1(Devendra Nath Divedi) – He has stated in his examination-in-chief that the informant informed over the telephone to him to go and examine appellant’s sick dog at fifth house located beyond the circuit house. He again stated that the accused and a lady came out and started abusing the informant by addressing him by his caste. He has further stated that he could not treat the dog as it was already dead. He has stated in his cross-examination that the appellant has not abused him rather he abused the informant.

II. P.W.2(Dr. Ashok Kumar Arun) – He stated in his chief that he had gone to the residence of the informant for some official work. During that time the informant received a phone ca