The court upheld the conviction for wrongful restraint under IPC while overturning the conviction under the SC & ST Act due to insufficient proof of the informant's caste status.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 23 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 341 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under (1)(x) of the said Act.

2. Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned counsel, states he lacks power and adequate papers for this case. He further submitted that the case file belongs to his late senior Brahmananda Panda. Nonetheless, he is willing to argue as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the request of the Court.

3. Heard Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.02.1992 at about 9:00 A.M., the informant, P.W.6, Arjuna Mallik, a Junior Engineer of Kudumulugumma Panchayat Samiti belonging to Scheduled Caste (Kandara), was returning from the market when, at P.W.D. Road Chhaka, the appellant, a member of the general caste, arrived on a motorbike, stopped in front of him and shouted abusive words referring to his caste, threatened that he had damaged his reputation, distributed pamphlets against him, and warned him to leave the place or else he would be killed. It is alleged that many persons were present and heard the abuse. The informant lodged a written report, leading to registration of the case and subsequent investigation.

5. The appellant’s defence was one of complete denial and false implication, alleging that due to his disputes with other contractors and opposition to illegal acts, he was victimised by the informant. He claimed that on the relevant day he had merely asked the informant to process a file relating to a work order, and no such caste-based abuse was ever uttered.

6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the informant (P.W.6), eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.7, and P.Ws.5 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. The defence examined none. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found the testimony of P.W.6 fully corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 7, and held the occurrence proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction and sentence as above were imposed. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

“10. P.W.6, the informant, has vividly narrated about the incident of that date and also of previous dates. He has also filed the pamphlet marked 'x' which had been distributed making allegations against him and on that day the accused also abused him telling that he damaged his reputation and distributed pamphlets against him. P.Ws 3 and 7 have admitted this fact. P.W.6 states that he is a Kandara belonging to Scheduled Caste. No denial suggestion has been given to him that he is not a member of Scheduled Caste. He states that the accused abused him 'Kandara Magyan" and shouted at him to seek a transfer and leave that place or else he would murder him. This has also been stated by P.Ws 3 and 7. The occurrence took place on a public road and this has been heard by many persons. P.W.6 felt humiliated and insulted. The evidence of P.W.6 regarding the occurrence of 14.2.92 gets full corroboration from P.Ws 3 and 7