The appellant was guilty under Section 323 IPC for intentionally inflicting injury by throwing hot water, while the co-accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence against him.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months under (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, for the offence under Section 323 IPC, no such sentence has been awarded by the learned trial court.

2. Heard Mr. Laxman Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 19.04.1994 at 12 noon while Jagannath Behera (informant-P.W.1) was returning to his house after purchasing tobacco snuff and passing in front of the house of the accused Padma Charan and Simadri Dehuri (co-accused, acquitted by the court below) had asked the informant as to why he is selling parched rice at Rs.1.15 instead of Rs.1.25. The informant replied that it is his own business and it is open to him at what price he will sell the parched rice. The informant and Simadri Dehuri had exchanged of words and at that point of time the appellant had supported the Simadri Dehuri. Admittedly, Simadri and the informant belong to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant belongs to non-scheduled caste. When there was exchange of words, Simadri instructed the appellant to throw hot water admixed with sugar on the informant. As per the instruction of Simadri (co-accused) and exchange of hot and filthy words, the appellant had thrown hot water on the informant and by that the informant was injured and lodged the FIR.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Tikabali P.S. Case No. 29 dated 18.04.1994 was registered for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 294/324/34 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. After investigation, charge sheet against the appellants for the offences, as mentioned above, was filed.

5. The co-accused (Simadri Dehuri) was acquitted by the learned trial court. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the present appellant alone.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses, whereas the defence took a stand of complete denial and claimed trial.

7. P.W.1, was the informant; P.W.2 was the sister-in-law of P.W.1; P.Ws. 3 and 4 were the occurrence witnesses; P.W.5 was the doctor and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of the present case.

8. The present appellant and one Simadri Dehury were put to trial on the charges under Section 326 /506/34 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, the victim/informant, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, the witnesses to the occurrence, has arrived at a finding that no case against the accused persons are made out under Section 506 of IPC. In that regard, the following findings were recorded by the learned trial court:-

“8. It has been found mention in the evidence of P.W. 1 that accused Padmacharan prevailed upon P.W. 1 to pay 1.25 instead of 1.15 as a token of sale of parched rice to P.W. 1. This evidence contrary to the F.I.R. version of P.W. 1. In the F.I.R. not only there is omission of sale and purchase of parched r