The judgment confirms that a conviction can stand under IPC while acquitting charges under SC & ST (PoA) Act due to lack of sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.08.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balangir-Sonepur, Balangir in G.R. Case No.168 of 1993/T.R. No.2 of 1994, whereby the sole appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(x)(i) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. On both the counts, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred), in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 3(x)(i) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one month.

2. Mr. D.P. Rath, learned counsel has been engaged as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He has appeared for the appellant and made the submission and for the State, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel was heard.

3. The prosecution set the criminal law into motion against the appellant in pursuance to the F.I.R. on the allegation that on 20.09.1993 at about 6 P.M., P.W.2 Rajeswari Chhatar, who is the wife of P.W.1, Gopinath Chhatar had been to fetch water from the village bank (tank). At that time, the appellant was washing his buffaloes at the pond. When he questioned the accused, he suddenly flared up and abused her by caste Gonda and dragged her holding her hands. On hearing hulla, when her husband came back to rescue and raised protest, the accused dealt a blow on his forehead. On account of such assault, he fell down on the ground and sustained bleeding injury. On the report of the informant (P.W.1), Binka P.S. Case No.48 of 1993 was registered.

4. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The appellant was charged of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC read with Section 3 (x) (i) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and he was put to trial.

5. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited six documents. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the two victims whereas P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the two eye witnesses to the alleged incident. P.W.5 was the witness to the seizure list, which is exhibited as Ext.2 whereas P.W.6 is the doctor, who had examined the victim and proved the injury certificate as Ext.3 P.W.7 was the Investigating Officer.

6. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of all the charges as has been mentioned above and recorded the following findings:

“8. When P.W.2 the wife is the first victim, P.W.1 her husband is the second. While supporting their case P.W.2 says that year before last on the day of Nuakhai at about evening time when she had been to village Bandh to fetch water, the accused was washing the buffaloes. When she requested the accused to remove the buffaloes so that she would take water, the accused flared up and abused her attributing her as ‘ganda’ telling “GANDA MANANKARA RUBAB BESI HOIGALANI” and dragged her holding her hand. When hearing hulla her husband came to her rescue, the accused dealt a blow on his forehead by means of a lathi. On account of such assault her husband fell down on the ground. P.W.1 her husband says in his evidence that on 20.9.93 at about 6.00 P.M. while he was in his shop located by the side of Bandh he could hear the cry of his wife who had been to fetch water to the Bandh. When he rushed to the rescue of his wife, the accused dealt a blow with a lathi on his forehead and on a