JUDGEMENT

Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 04.04.2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Additional Session Judge, Bhopal in S.C.No.34/2005 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story in brief is as under:- "2- vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj ?kVuk la{ksi esa bl izdkj crkbZ tkrh gS fd vfHk;ksD=h ----- ¼v-lk-dz-&1½ -------dh efgyk gS] tks xkWo esa jg dj esgur etnwjh djrh gSA ?kVuk fnukad 22@5@05 dks jk=h vfHk;ksD=h vfHk;qDr ds V~;wcoSy ij ihus dk ikuh Hkjus xbZ Fkh vkSj tc ?kj okil ykSV jgh Fkh rks vfHk;qDr xksfoan us] tks ogkW ikl esa [kMk Fkk] ihNs ls vkdj vfHk;ksD=h dh csbTtrh djus dh fu;r ls vfHk;ksD=h dk lhuk idM dj nck fn;kA vfHk;ksD=h fpYykbZ rks vfHk;qDr ogkW ls Hkkx x;kA vius ?kj vkdj vfHk;ksD=h us vius yM ds vkseizdk’k ds lkFk tkdj pkSdh bZaV[ksMh ij ?kVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih&1 ?kVuk dh jk=h dks gh 23-40 cts fy[kkbZ FkhA iqfyl pkSdh bZaV[ksM h ij izFke lwpukfjiksVZ fy[kkus ds i’pkr~ vly vijk/k dh dk;edh grq Fkkuk xquxk Hkstk x;k] tgkW vly vijk/k dh dk;eh fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih&4 vafdr dh xbZA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh 'kSysUnz flag pkSgku rRdkyhu ,l-Mh-vks-ih-] cSjfl;k] Hkksiky ¼v-lk-dz-&6½ us ?kVukLFky dk fujh{k.k dj ?kVukLFky dk uD’kk ekSdk izn’kZ ih&2 cuk;kA vfHk;ksD=h dh tkfr dh iqf"V gsrq xzke iapk;r vpkjiqjk ls izn’kZ ih&4 dk tkfr izek.k i= izkIr fd;k vkSj iw.kZ vuqla/kku mijkar vfHk;ksxi= U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh] izFke Js.kh] Hkksiky ¼Jh foods flag j?koa’kh½ ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k] tks fnukad 15@7@05 dks bl U;k;ky; dks mikfiZr fd;k x;kA

mikiZ.k i’pkr~ izdj.k bl U;k;ky; esa izkIr gqvk A"

3. After case was committed to the trial court, the trial court framed charges against appellant & the same were read over to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried for the offences charged with.

To prove the charges against appellant, prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant pleaded total denial & stated that he has been falsely implicated. After evaluating the evidence that came on record, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment convicted & sentenced appellant as above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the instant case there is no caste certificate of competent authority and prosecutrix has improved and Omprakash and Gyan Singh are not laible witness. It is also submitted that impugned judgment is bad in law, illegal, incorrect & improper.

Learned trial court has erred in placing reliance on depositions of prosecution witnesses as the same are full of contradictions, omissions, discrepancies, inconsistencies & improvements. The evidence of prosecution witnesses does not fully support/corroborates evidence of each other. Prosecution has not examined independent witnesses to prove its case. Prosecution witnesses are unreliable. Trial court has not appreciated prosecution evidence appropriately. Defence version ought to have been accepted. Hence, trial court has erred in convicting & sentencing appellant as above. Alternately, it is also prayed that sentence imposed by the trial court is disproportionate to the offence proved.

Looking to the age of appellant as well as other circumstances of the case, trial court should have extended benefit of section 360 of CrPC/Probation of Offenders Act. It is also urged that trial court has acquitted appellant offence under Section 354 of IPC and there are material and contradiction with respect to place of incident in depositions of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed, impugned judgment be set aside & he be acquitted.

5 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state has submitted that p