The appellate court found procedural errors in altering charges and inadequacies in prosecution evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th July, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Spl. Case No. 45 of 1994, whereby the present appellants were convicted under Section 3 (1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. A written instruction dated 26.09.2023 received from the I.I.C., Baliapala Police Station is placed on record, which indicates that appellant no.l Gangadhar Patra, has died over the last four years, hence the appeal qua him stands abated. In so far as other appellants are concerned, it is informed that they are residing in their village. The written instruction is already on record.

3. Heard Mr. J. Katikia, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.11.1993 at about 10.00 A.M., the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Tribe (Santal), was ploughing his agricultural land when appellant no. 1 along with two others allegedly entered the land armed with lathis and bhujalis, unyoked his plough, drove away the bullocks, took away the plough and yoke, and abused him in filthy language referring to his caste. The complainant alleged further threats of life to him if he returned to the land and to set his house on fire.

5. On the basis of the complaint, the learned S.D.J.M. initially took cognizance under Sections 419 , 420, and 323 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The matter was later transferred to the learned Special Court, which took cognizance under (1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and conducted the trial.

6. During trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant, including himself (P.W.2). P.W.1 claimed to be an eye- witness grazing cattle nearby, while P.W.3, a close relative of the complainant, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution in respect of the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) but, placing reliance on part of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, convicted the appellants under (1)(v) of the Act. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

“9. The incident took place on3.11.93. But the complaint petition was filed on 10.11.93 in the Court the S.D.J.M., Balasore-wrongly of course. Information was lodged at the police station, but no action was taken on the report of the complainant by the OIC of the concerned Police station. Due to poverty and ignorance, perhaps, the complainant was unable to call for the FIR lodged before the police to be proved in this case. He could not bring the inaction of the police officers to the notice of his higher authorities believing that his grievances could be redressed in the proper forum, that is, the Special Court, where he took shelter later. The defence could not examine any witness to prove that the disputed land belonged to the accused persons.

10. Duly considered, the evidence of the prosecution adduced by P.Ws. 1 and 2 has proved the complainant's case beyond all reasonable doubt. I find the accused persons guilty under section 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convict them thereunder.

The convicts who attempted to grab the property of the is a poor man of Scheduled Tribe are not to be leniently dealt with. Heard them. They still maintain to be innocent. But in view of my foregoing findings of guilt of the accused persons, I sentence each of the convicts to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months under sectio