Violation of procedural rules in SC & ST Act investigations vitiates trial outcomes; the conviction under lesser charges can be maintained despite initial assault intensity.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The three appellants consolidately preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, B0langir in G.R. Case No.358 of 1998 arising out of T.R. Case No.1 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 307 /34 of I.P.C., convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 /34 of I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months on that count.

2. Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.08.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.1-Chakradhar Chinda and the appellant No.2- Rohit Chinda have expired. Therefore, the present appeal qua the appellant Nos.1 and 2 stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellants. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of appellant No.3-Harisankar Chinda.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that one Krushna Nag, the injured (P.W.1) had purchased some landed properties from the pre- decessor in interests of the appellants more than forty years back and has been in possession over the same as the owner thereof. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 23.06.1998 at about 12.30 P.M., while Krushna Nag (P.W.1) was sitting near the shop of one Durjan Seth, the accused persons came there, being armed with axe and iron-rods and assaulted him by means of the said weapons on his head, neck and hand, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries. On being assaulted, the injured fell down, and the appellants fled away. It is also alleged that they had threatened the injured (P.W.1) to take away his life. Giridhari Nag (P.W.7), the son of the injured saw the occurrence from a distance. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 /34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On their stance of denial and claim of trial, they were put to trial, after the charges were framed.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the injured whereas P.W.2, was the eye-witness to the occurrence and has turned hostile. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses, who have also not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 is the wife of the injured and said to be eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.7 is the informant, who is the son of the injured. P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 were the witnesses to prove the circumstances. P.W.11 was the A.S.I. of Dungripali Out Post and the first Investigating Officer, whereas P.W.12 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured on police requisition. P.W.13 is the second I.O. of the case.

6. The learned trial Court found the testimonies of the injured witness (P.W.1), his wife (P.W.5), and his son (P.W.7) credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the seizure of bloodstained articles, despite hostile independent witnesses and minor discrepancies in weapon attributions. It concluded that the assa