ORAL JUDGMENT

Present Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Atrocity Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), on

4th April, 1998, in Special Case No.48 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, thereof to undergo six months. The learned Judge was also pleased to convict the appellant- accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506 (2) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 506 (2) and three months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has ordered that all the sentences should run concurrently.

2. Heard learned Counsel, Mr.U.I.Vyas, appearing for the appellant and learned A.P.P., Mr.Desai, appearing for the respondent-State. Both the Counsel has taken this Court through the judgment and order under challenge, so also, the oral evidence led during the course of trial. The judgment is assailed on various grounds mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the memo of appeal.

3. To appreciate the rival side contentions firstly, it would be necessary for the Court to state the prosecution case in brief. That on 19/3/1994 the complainant after closing of the school was going towards village Bus-stand and the other teachers had left the school and were proceeding in the direction of bus-stand, at that time present appellant-accused came to school compound and started to give foul abuses and thereby insulted the complainant. The appellant-accused had caught hold of the wrist of complainant, addressing her as 'dhedhdi' and gave threat of her life by setting her on fire. He also gave threat that he after putting all school teachers in a class room will ablaze them on fire. It is also the case of prosecution that present appellant- accused had given a threat that when the complainant will come to school on the next day, he would kill her. On such complaint given by the complainant it came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocities Act, so also, under Sections 506 (2) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was carried out and on completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge-sheet.

4. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses including the Investigating Officer to corroborate the version of the complainant. On plain reading of the evidence of the prosecution including the complaint, it emerges that before the complainant and other teachers had left the school compound and proceeded towards bus-stand, because of quarrel taken up by the accused with the complainant, some of the prosecution witnesses had rushed to the spot of incident. It was not difficult or impossible to rush to the school again for other teachers or a staff members of the school in a couple of minutes. Reading of the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses it emerge that accused was not knowing the caste of the complainant that she belongs to schedule caste community. The complainant-teacher has accepted in the complaint itself that she had reprimanded the students who were quarreling in the class-room. The students were of first standard and must be of tender aged. The Court can and it is possibly to visualize the nature of quarrel or type of mischief that students might have played with each other in the class-room. After going home from school, a student reprimanded by the complainant appears to have made complaint about punishment given to him. It is not the case of prosecution that student who was reprimanded or punished by the complainant was son of the appellant-accused. It has come on record that student reprimanded