The prosecution must prove the caste of the complainant in cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The prosecution failed to prove the caste of the complainant, leading to the acquittal of the appellant on all charges.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 294 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for assaulting and insulting the complainant, who belonged to a scheduled caste. The appellant's wife was also assaulted during the incident.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the caste of the complainant beyond his statement, leading to the acquittal of the appellant on all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's failure to prove the complainant's caste and the lack of evidence to support the charges of assault and insult.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the caste of the complainant in cases under the Act and highlighted the lack of evidence to support the charges.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and any fine amount deposited by the appellant was ordered to be refunded.

JUDGEMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed on 11.5.2007 by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, "the Act"), Seoni, in Special Case No.46/2006 holding the appellant guilty of the offence of Sections 294 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for two months, simple imprisonment for six months and fine amount of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months under the respective offences with a further default clause of simple imprisonment for one month, in case of non-payment of fine of Rs.500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Shiv Charan Mangore belonged to scheduled caste category and was working as Panch in Ward No.10; there was a work of road construction undergoing in Ward Nos.9 and 10 and labourers were engaged for that work; appellant Khemchand is the husband of another Panch of Ward No.9, namely Maya Bai; a dispute arose between the appellant and the complainant about the persons to be engaged for the work upon which appellant became furious; he gave obscene abuses and insulted the complainant by his caste name; another issue involved in this dispute was that the complainant found 50 bags of cement missing and this act of taking account of cement bags by the complainant made the appellant more angry; appellant gave blows with lathi, while his minor sons also joined in this attack and caused injuries to complainant with lathi as well as hands and fists;

upon hearing the screams of complainant, his wife came for rescue; she too was insulted by caste name and was pushed down on the ground; she too was assaulted; the labourers present on scene intervened; complainant reported the matter to the police upon which crime was registered and the matter was investigated; upon filing the charge-sheet, the trial followed and under the impugned judgment, appellant was convicted along with his son Bunty alias Pappu. Only appellant was given jail sentence, while benefit of probation was awarded to co-convict.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the findings of the learned trial court are arbitrary and illegal; they are contrary to the material and evidence available on record; they are based upon unwarranted presumptions and conjectures; the guilt of appellant was not established beyond reasonable doubts; a doubtful story was held as proved; the impugned judgment is patently against the settled principles of law and it, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is accordingly prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment should be set aside.

4. State has opposed the present appeal.

5. Record of the trial court is perused and arguments only on behalf of State have been heard. No arguments were submitted on behalf of appellant for remaining absent at the stage of final hearing.

6. Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Shiv Charan Mangore (P.W.1), who is the complainant in the case, his wife Bina Bai (P.W.2), Anita Bai (P.W.3), who was present on the scene as a labourer, Dy.S.P. Heeralal Chaudhary (P.W.4), who wrote the FIR and investigated the matter, and Dr. H. V. Jain (P.W.5), who medically examined the complainant Shiv Charan Mangore and his wife Bina Bai. Maya Bai (D.W.1), Smt. Kamlesh Rai (D.W.2) and Chandan Singh (D.W.3) are the three defence witnesses examined in the case. Exs.P-1 to P-10 and Exs.D-1 to D-4c are the documents submitted in evidence.

7. In this case, appellant was charged for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for insulting the complainant Shiv Charan Mangore by his caste name, who allegedly belonged to scheduled caste. The caste certificate of complainant Shiv Charan Mangore was the most important document to prove this charge, but that document is not included in the list of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution. The impugned judgment reveals that complainant Shiv Charan Mangore (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document