Credible evidence of caste identity is essential to establish an offence under the SC & ST (PoA) Act; without it, prosecution fails.

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 and order dated 22.09.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Balangir in G.R. Case No.53 of 1994 (T.R. No.3 of 1994), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month.

2. Heard Mr. Abhas Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.1, who belongs to the Ganda caste, on 01.02.1994 at about 5.00 P.M., while returning from the village tank, was intercepted by the accused, stated to be a member of the Dumal caste, near the village clubhouse. It is alleged that the accused suddenly caught hold of the collar of his shirt, abused him by referring to his caste as “Ganda”, and pushed him. As a result of such push, P.W.1 fell to the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter, Banamali Podha (P.W.3) and Kaibalya Chhatria (P.W.4) administered first aid by sprinkling water on his face, upon which he regained consciousness.

On the following day, i.e., on 02.02.1994, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and submitted a written report, which was scribed by one Saheb Mahakud. On the basis of the said report, P.S. Case No.9 of 1994 was registered. The then Junior S.I. of Luisinga P.S. (P.W.5), having been directed, took up investigation. In the course of investigation, he examined the complainant at the Police Station, visited the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.2), and examined other witnesses. On 24.02.1994, he arrested the accused and forwarded him to Court in custody. Upon completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused person. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses in total. P.W.1 is the victim himself, who lodged the F.I.R. at the concerned Police Station. P.W.2 is the wife of the victim. P.Ws.3 and 4 claim to be eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5 was the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and, upon completion thereof, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. D.W.1, namely Paramananda Meswa, has deposed that P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were members of the Janata Dal party, whereas the accused was an active worker of the Congress party, thereby suggesting the existence of political rivalry between the parties.

5. The sole appellant in the present case stood charged for the commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), who inter alia, has stated that on 01.02.1994 at about 5.00 P.M., when he was coming to the Basti, the accused came from the opposite direction and suddenly caught hold of the collar of his shirt and abused him in the name of caste and gave a push, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground and became senseless. Banamali Podh (P.W.3) and Kaibalya Chhatia (P.W.4) gave him the first aid at the spot by sprinkling water on his face. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police on the next date. One Saheb Mahakud was the scribe of the F.I.R. on his dictation. However, Saheb Mahakud has not been examined. In the cross-examination, the victim (P.W.1) has also stated that at the time of occurrence, Kai