Prosecution must conclusively prove caste membership for SC/ST offenses; failure to do so justifies acquittal under such charges.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.02.2003 passed in Special Case No. 10/ 2002 by Special Judge (Atrocities), Rewa. By the impugned order, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to one year R.I. He has further been convicted under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C./ S.T. Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- in default 6 months R.I. Appellant has also been convicted under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- in default 6 months R.I and also under Section 332 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default 6 months R.I.

2. As per the prosecution story, on the date of the incident i.e. 5.12.2001 at about 1:30 p.m., the appellant has gone to Prathmik Pathshala, Raigarh, Tehsil Sirmore, District Rewa and abused the complainant Rajbahoran Saket. It is stated by the prosecution that the present appellant Dinesh Singh had assaulted the complainant when he was doing his official work. It is also alleged that when one Harish Prajapati had come to stop the quarrel then the petitioner had also abused him (Harish).

3. FIR was Iodged by complainant Rajbahoran Saket at Police Station Sirmore upon which the police Station Sirmore took up the investigation and after conducting investigation registered offences punishable under Sections 451 , 353, 323 294 of the IPC and also under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 against the present appellant. Thereafter police filed the charge-sheet before the competent court of law where the charges under Sections 451 , 353 , 323 and 332 of the IPC and also under Sections 3(i)(x) of the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act were framed against the present appellant.

4. The appellant denied the aforesaid charges and pleaded non guilty. Thereafter, the trial Court took evidence of the witnesses and convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is based on conjectures, surmises and presumptions. It is submitted that material available on record does not indicate that the above mentioned offences are made out against the present appellant. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to earlier political enmity. It is submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which no reasonable explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is further submitted that P.W.2 Kishankant Dwivedi and P.W.5 Vijay Kumar Singh who were said to be the eye- witnesses have denied the incident. P.W.5 Vijay Kumar Singh was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that no injuries were found on the body of the complainant. No medical report was produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. On these grounds, the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal from the charges.

7. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. The question before this Court is whether the trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant and appeal may be accepted.

9. The first question arises whether charge of Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 is proved against the appellant or not. In order to establish the aforesaid charge, it is essential to prove that the complai