The prosecution must establish caste status through documentation to uphold charges under the S.C. & S.T. Act; oral testimony alone is insufficient to prove claims.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by four appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge under S.C. & S.T. (P.A) Act, Khurda in T.R. Case No. 78 of 1998 (arising out of 1CC No.7 of 1998), whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and on that count the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month, besides convicting the appellants for offence under Section 427 /34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that in the year 1998, the complainant had raised paddy crops over his land appertaining to plot Nos. 685 and 715 covered under Khata No.202 measuring 608 decimals by doing all agricultural operations. On 27.8.98, all the accused persons forcibly entered into the land of the complainant, damaged his paddy seedlings, in consequence of which the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 200/- and on protest by him, the accused persons abused him in name of his caste by saying “MAGIHA HADI PILAKU ETHARE MARI POTI DEBI. KALIKATARE CHAKIRI KARI MAGIHAR GANDIRE PANI HOI GALANI” and also threatened to murder him. It is also alleged that at the time of such abuse, the accused Udayanath Samantaray dealt a blow with a Katua on the waist of the complainant and the other accused persons chased him and his son with a motive to assault. So, out of fear, the complainant and his son fled away from that place and at that time, the accused persons were also threatening him to set their house on fire, in case he reported the matter at the police station.

3. The present case is arising out of a complaint case. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, whereas P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 (complainant). So as to establish the stand taken by the appellants, they have also examined one witness, namely, Raja Kishore Saho (D.W.1). The prosecution story hinges upon the evidence of only three witnesses. The complainant (P.W.1) filed a sketchy complaint without giving any details of the offence and not even supported by any affidavit. He led the preliminary/initial evidence, inter alia, stating as under:-

“I raised paddy crops in my recorded land situated in mouza Nalsingh and did all other agricultural operation. The accused persons have been creating trouble in my possession over this land since long for which I have also reported against them at the P.S. Yesterday, all the four accused persons damaged all the paddy crops raised by me over that land. When I protested such action of the accused persons they abused me saying “SALA HADI SALA GANDIRE PANI HOI GALANI TO PANI KADHI DEBU”. They also threatened to set fire to my house and murder me in case I report the matter at the P.S. The accused persons also chased me to assault, but out of fear I fled away to my house.”

4. On relying upon the complaint read with the preliminary/initial evidence, the learned trial court framed the following charges:-

“Firstly- That you on the 27^th day of August, 1998 at about 4 P.M. at village Nalasingh, in furtherance of your common intention, committed mischief by uprooting the paddy plant of the land of the complainant Bhrungu Naik, by causing a wrongful loss of Rs.200/- to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 427/34 I.P.C. and within my cognizance;

Secondly- That you on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of your common intention committed criminal intima