The court ruled that insufficient evidence established caste-related abuse under the SC & ST Act, affirming conviction under IPC for assault while applying probation due to the trivial nature of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 21.09.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.62 of 2001, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting all the appellants of the charges under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, convicted them for the offences under Sections 323 of I.P.C. (herein after “I.P.C” for brevity) and in addition to that, the accused-appellant No.1, Jayakrushna Jena has been convicted for the offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. On that count, all the appellants were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 3 23 of I.P.C. and the appellant No.1 further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under of I.P.C.

2. Heard Ms. Biswarupa Pati, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.10.1998 at about 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. in village Pakhimund, the accused persons, namely, Jayakrushna (appellant No.1), Kalandi (appellant No.2) and Nitu (appellant No.3), allegedly uprooted the boundary fence separating their bari from that of the informant. When the informant protested, accused Jayakrushna is stated to have abused her in filthy language and pushed her into water. At that time, on the protest of Ramesh, the younger brother of the informant’s husband, the three accused persons allegedly assaulted him and caused injuries to his person.

It is further alleged that on the following morning, at the same spot, the accused persons, being armed with thenga, katari, farsa and other weapons, charged at Bihari, the husband of the informant, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by giving fist blows and kicks. Accused Jayakrushna is also alleged to have struck his leg with a lathi. It is further the case of the prosecution that Basudeb, Ramesh and Manguli, the brothers of the informant’s husband, were also assaulted by the accused persons. Madhu, the father-in-law of the informant, on raising protest, was allegedly thrown against a kia fence. The informant herself was abused in filthy language and pushed by the accused persons.

On 12.10.1998 at about 11.15 a.m., on receipt of a written report from the informant, Satyabadi P.S. Case No.120 of 1998 was registered. The matter was taken up for investigation; the injured persons were sent for medical examination; and search was conducted for the alleged weapons of offence, though nothing could be recovered. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 323 and 294/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act.

4. Out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses cited to establish the case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses, declining to examine the rest. P.W.1 is the victim and informant. P.Ws.2 and 4 are the brothers of the husband of the informant. P.W.3, the father-in-law of the informant, is also a victim. P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the injured persons, and P.W.6, the then S.I. of Police, Satyabadi P.S., was the I.O. The prosecution has also exhibited certain documents. The defence, while adducing no oral evidence, has exhibited three injury reports.

5. Although initially the appellants stood charged for the offences under Sections 323 and 294/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, however, the learned trial Court after analyzing the entire evidences of the prosecution have arrived at a co