The conviction under IPC sections was sustained, but charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act were not proven due to lack of evidence establishing the victim's caste.

JUDGMENT :
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal filed by the sole appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.10.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 294 and 354 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of IPCand, accordingly, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for seven days on each count under Section 34 1 and 294 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 354 of IPC.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 24.04.1993 at about 8.00 to 9.00 P.M. the informant Sobha Khosla, who is a member of the Schedule Caste, had been to the shop of Siba Prasad Samal (P.W.5) to purchase bread. While she was returning from that shop, the present appellant along with one Ranjit Praharaj came there in a motor cycle and accused Ranjit Praharaj abused her in filthy language uttering “Magyan Randi”. He then dealt fist blows on her fore-head causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, both the accused persons dragged her by holding her wearing sari and asked her to sit on the motor cycle. Her sari was torn as the accused persons dragged her and thereafter both the accused persons left in that motor cycle. There was profuse bleeding from the fore-head just above the left eye of the informant. She reported the occurrence at the police station. Thereafter, the police registered the case and took up investigation and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The appellant along with other accused were put to trial.

3. The accused persons including the appellant stood charged and subjected to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 294 , 341, 354 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short "IPC") and Section 3 (1) (x), 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined five witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 is the victim-informant, P.W.2, is an independent witness, who did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile, P.W.3 is a shop keeper, who was also declared as hostile, P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet and P.W.5 is the doctor, who examined the informant-injured and found injuries in her person.

5. The present appeal is pending since 1994. When the matter was called up for hearing, none has appeared for the appellant. In view of the long pending of the matter, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra-4, Advocate, who is present in Court, as an Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court. Mr. Mishra, has readily agreed to assist the Court and rendered very effective assistance. On behalf of the State, Ms. Gayatri Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel is heard.

6. In the present case, P.W.1, the informant and the victim is the prime witness to the prosecution, her version stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.5, the doctor and P.W.4 the investigating officer of the case. P.W.2 and P.W.3 being independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, they were subjected to extensive cross examination by the prosecutor. The conjoint reading of the evidence of all the witnesses reveals that the victim was restrained by the accused persons and assaulted by them. P.W.5 the doctor found three injuries in the person of P.W.1; (1) lacerated injury 1” x 1/2” on the left side forehead; (2) abrasion 1/2" x 1/2”on medial side of left eye brow and (3) abrasion 1/2”x 1/2” on the exterior part of the left knee-joint. The statement of the doctor P.W.5 stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 the victim, who stated that in the night of occurrence she had been to the bus stand to purch