Procedural violations in criminal investigations can lead to the reversal of convictions under special laws protecting marginalized communities.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th August, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 42 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Anshuman Ray, learned Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was running a grocery shop in village Sibapura within Khantapada Police Station limits. It is alleged that the victim, P.W.2, a woman belonging to the Kandara community (a Scheduled Caste), had purchased grocery items from the appellant on credit. On 11.06.1995 (Sunday), the appellant went to her house to demand payment of the outstanding dues. Upon her request for time, the appellant allegedly abused her in caste-related derogatory terms (“Sali, Kanduruni”), caught hold of her hair, dragged her, threw her onto his bicycle, and dealt her two to three blows with a stick.

4. The FIR was lodged by P.W.2, leading to registration of Khantapada P.S. Case No. 61 of 1995 under Sections 448, 341, 294, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. On completion of investigation, the appellant alone was sent up for trial for offences under Sections 341, 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

5. The defence plea was one of denial, alleging false implication due to prior enmity. It was suggested that a village dispute had arisen when the son of P.W.2 allegedly eloped with a girl from the Oilman community, resulting in a grudge against the appellant. It was further suggested that P.W.2 was a habitual debtor in his shop and had foisted the case when pressed for payment. Two defence witnesses were examined to support this version.

6. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the informant as P.W.2, two claimed eyewitnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.5), and police officials (P.Ws.3, 4 and 6). The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the appellant under Sections 341, 294 and 506 IPC, holding that the essential ingredients of those offences were not established beyond all reasonable doubt. However, it convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, finding that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 was consistent regarding the assault and caste-related insult. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

“17. Coming to the allegation under section 3(1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, it needs mention that P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 make emphatic and consistent statements that the accused caught the hair of P.W.2, dragged her out and threw her on his cycle; at the same time, abusing her saying "Sali Kanduruni". The abuse coupled with his action amply reveals that the accused had an intention to dishonour and so also to outrage the modesty of P.W.2, a Woman. It is evident from the statement of these witnesses including those of D.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused is oil-man by caste; as such, a non- scheduled caste and non-scheduled tribe person. P.W.2 makes unassailed and unch