Conviction under the SC/ST Act requires proof of the complainant's caste status, which was not provided, leading to the appeal's success.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are herein preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19-5-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”) in Session Trial No. 49/99 convicting for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 and sentencing rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in case of non-payment of fine, they should undergo additional R.I. for 15 days each.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

On 28-3-1998 at about 7:30 p.m. the complainant-Sharmila came to the police station- AJK, Rewa stated that when she was in the house at about 4:00 p.m., four persons of her village came to her house and Anil Tiwari asked her to give a glass of water and she has given a glass of water then Shiv Kumar asked a glass of water when she went inside the house to get the water at the same time Shiv Kumar Came her behind and caught her hand and Anoop Tiwari and Ramcharit followed him and all of them put the hand on her back to which she shouted and on hearing her voice wife of Ramsiya’s, Gori’s and Kishan’s came there, at that time, Anoop shouted her by using her caste “Kolin” and shouting to set fire to her house with a matchstick, immediately she went inside the house to pick up her child namely Navin and those people set fire her house and ran away towards the village when she raised alarm her husband Ramesh, Buddh sen and Subedar came there and they went to the police station, informed the same to B. D. Sharma, who in-charge of police station recorded her statement registered the same in a case of Crime No. 9/98 for offences under sections 452, 354, 436 r/w 34 of IPC and 3(2)(iv) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on 10-1-1999 all the appellants/accused were arrested and there was a dispute between the complainant and appellants/accused with respect to the plot bearing No. 53/8 and 53/12 and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Rewa by SDOP, Sirmour.

3. The learned Special Judge took the cognizance and framed the charges for the offence under sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(iv) of the Act of 1989 and under sections 436 and 354 r/w 34 of IPC against all the appellants/accused, and they abjured their guilt and stated that they did not take any specific plea in this case, however it as alleged that the appellants were falsely implicated due to previous enmity and pleaded not guilty and they claimed to be tried. In support of his defence, Sampat Kol (DW-1) and Hanman Pandey (DW-2) were examined

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited some documents i.e. (Ex.P-1) spot map prepared by Investigating Officer B. K. Jha, (Ex.P-2) daily diary report “Rojnamcha Sanha” and (Ex.P-3) first information report marked on behalf of the prosecution in support of their case.

5. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses the learned Special Judge examined the appellants/accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have pleaded innocence further specifically pleaded that all the allegations made against them are false, further they too have stated that in order to settle the earlier dispute between the PW-1- Sharmila and the appellants/ accused, she filed this case against them.

6. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had heard the learned counsel for the parties and ultimately considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submission of the learned counsel for both the sides convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 as stated (supra).

7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by learned Special Judge, the present appeal is filed.

8. Now the short point that arises for consid