The court held that while the intention to murder was not established, the appellants were guilty of assaulting the victim, with emphasis on the inapplicability of exaggerated judicial proceedings in false accusations under caste-related acts.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore Camp at Gunupur in Sessions Case No.358 of 1992. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants for the offences under Sections 307 /34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, convicted them for the offence under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 323 /34 of I.P.C. and Section 452 /34 of I.P.C. and on that count, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1994. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra (4), learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Mishra.

3. Heard Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra (4), learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Shiva Mohaty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 08.09.1992, upon receiving information that certain villagers had been assaulted by the accused persons, Aswini Kumar Gomango (P.W.1), who was then the Chairman of Gunupur Block, proceeded to inquire into the matter. It is alleged that both the accused persons assaulted him and abused him in filthy language, including caste- related insults, first at the Bus Stand and again at the Katika Sahi junction of Gunupur town. P.W.1 reportedly managed to escape and returned to his residence. However, at around midnight, both the accused persons allegedly trespassed into his house, assaulted him, abused him, and attempted to kill him by throttling, threatening that they would end his life.

Based on these allegations, a report was lodged with the police, pursuant to which the case was registered, investigation commenced, and, upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 323 /34 and 452/34 of I.P.C. and Section 307 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellants were put to trial on framing of charges of the offences as mentioned above.

5. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 is the injured informant, who testified to the entire sequence of events. P.W.2 was a witness to the incident, who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W.3 was an eye-witness, corroborated the occurrence that took place inside the house of P.W.1. P.W.4 was the Assistant Surgeon of Gunupur Sub- Divisional Hospital, who testified the injuries on the person of P.W.1 during his examination on 09.09.1992. P.W.5, another eye-witness, also supported the prosecution regarding the assault inside the residence of P.W.1. P.W.6 was a Senior Advocate of the Gunupur Bar and a post-occurrence witness. P.W.7 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.W.8, the then Sub-Inspector of Gunupur Police Station, was the Investigating Officer. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined in support of the defence plea.

6. Initially the appellants were stood charged for the alle