UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18. 10. 2000 passed by the Special Judge (S. C. /s. T. Act), Banda.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that on 13. 8. 1999 in the after-noon at about 4 P. M. while Dwarika (P. W. 2)was at his residence, the appellant-accused Shamsuddin came to him and started abusing him using filthy language which attracted the attention of complainant Ram Babu (P. W. 1) the son of p. W. 2, who tried to stop the accused from abusing his father. Thereupon the appellant assaulted him with Lathi inflicting two contusions upon his body. On the commotion raised on the spot several witnesses arrived there and the accused thereafter left the spot. It is also stated in the f. I. R, that the appellant was accompanied by unknown person who was holding a country-made pistol. The matter was immediately reported at the police station at 5 P. M. by P. W. 1 and a case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and 3 (1) (10) of S. C. /s. T. Act was registered against the appellant. The injuries of Ram Babu (P. W. 01) were examined at Primary Health Centre, Naraini, the same evening at 8 P. M. Dr. N. D. Sharma (P. W. 5) has found two contusions on the body of ram Babu, one on the left leg and the other on the left side of back. The matte was investigated by K. S. Sinha, S. I. (P. W. 4), who, after recording evidence etc. in the case, submitted charge-sheet.

( 3 ) THE accused on being charged for the aforesaid offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 i. P. C. and 3 (1) (10) of S. C/s. T. Act, he pleaded not guilty and subsequently under Section 313 cr. P. C. he stated that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity.

( 4 ) THE trial court in this case recorded the evidence of five witnesses during the trial, who included the complainant Ram Babu (P. W. 1), his father Dwarika (P. W. 2) and another eye witness Babu (P. W. 3), the Investigating Officer K. S. Sinha (P. W. 4) and Dr. N. D. Sharma, who had medically examined Ram Babu on 13. 8. 2000 as P. W. 5. The prosecution also proved the documents Exts. Ka-1 to Ka-6 which "include the F. I. R. , Chick F. I. R. , injury report of Ram babu, siteplan and charge-sheet etc.

( 5 ) THE defence in this case has not submitted any evidence, oral or documentary.

( 6 ) THE trial court after having considered all the materials and evidence available on record found that the offences punishable under, Section 3 (1) (10) of S. C. /s/t. Act and under Section 506 I. P. C. were not proved against the appellant-accused and he was acquitted of the same. The court below, however, found that the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 I. P. C. had been proved and accordingly conviction was recorded for those offences and sentenced the appellant with rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. and for two years rigorous imprisonment with regard to the offence punishable under Section 504 i. P. C.

( 7 ) SINCE this appeal was preferred from jail as the appellant was not represented by anybody, Sri sikandar Bharat Kochar had been appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant and place arguments in this appeal on his behalf. I have heard Sri Kochar and the learned A. G. A. at length and have also perused the paper-book and the original record of the trial court.

( 8 ) IT is a case of Marpeet in which the complainant Ram Babu is said to have received certain minor injuries. The place of occurrence is Naraini town. The police station is at a distance of only one Km. from the place of occurrence, but the F. I. R. had been lodged after about three hours of the incident at 7 P. M. Obviously there is delay in giving information to the police. This delay has not been explained either in the F. I. R. or in the statement of the complainant. In fact this is such a case where the informant had received very minor injuries and the whole narration of the incident was also very small which could have bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document