JUDGEMENT

In this criminal appeal, the judgment passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Raisen, in Special Case No.79/2004 on 7.4.2005 has been challenged whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence of Section 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was sentenced to a fine amount of Rs.300/- for the offences of Section 294 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In case of default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 15 days and one month respectively were directed to be suffered by the appellant.

2. The prosecution case rests on the facts that on 15.8.2004 at around 8:00 a.m. the complainant was in the school premises of village Ratanpur for hoisting national flag on the occasion of Independence Day and while the programme was going on the appellant came there, gave filthy and obscene abuses to the complainant, insulted him by caste name and gave threats to him. He also threw away the sweets which were to be distributed on the occasion. On the written complaint made on 17.8.2004, FIR was registered at Crime No.96/2004 at Police Station, Sanchi, district Raisen, and the investigation was undertaken. Upon filing of charge-sheet, the trial ensued and the appellant was convicted of both the charged offences.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the judgment of trial court is bad in law and on facts as it failed to appreciate the evidence prudently; material additions, contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses have been ignored; independent witnesses failed to support the prosecution story; the defence of appellant was not at all considered; there was an old enmity between the families of the two parties but it too was not considered; there was no abuse regarding the caste of complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant be acquitted of both the offences.

4. State has opposed this appeal on the ground that there is no reason to intervene in the judgment.

5. Arguments of both the parties have been heard. The counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has submitted during final arguments that he is challenging only the finding of conviction given under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and is not assailing the conviction under Section 294 IPC and the sentence passed therefor. Record of the court below has been perused.

6. In the light of submission made by the counsel for appellant, this appeal is not being considered in context of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 294 IPC for which he is sentenced to a fine of Rs.300/- and which, according to the record of trial court, has already been deposited.

7. This appeal is to be decided in context of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The record of trial court reveals that although it is claimed in the FIR, marked as Ex.P-2, that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste category but there is no documentary evidence available on record to prove this claim. The prosecution has relied mainly on the oral testimony of witnesses on this point. Complainant Kallu Singh (P.W.1) and all the eyewitnesses, namely Hari Narayan (P.W.2), Somat Singh (P.W.3) and Gajraj Singh (P.W.4), have claimed that the complainant is Kori by caste and, according to the impugned judgment, the defence has failed to challenge the evidence given about the caste of complainant. It may be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer R. K. Pastaria (P.W.5) has claimed that he had obtained the caste certificate of complainant during investigation but still that document was not produ