The prosecution must prove charges beyond all reasonable doubts, and lack of evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:
Judgment - Challenged Judgment - The appellants challenged the judgment passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were held guilty for various offenses including Section 294 IPC, Section 353 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The complainant, a police officer, alleged that the appellants obstructed his duty, insulted him by his caste, and used criminal force against him.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the complainant's caste, contradictions in witness testimonies, and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses.
Issues: The issues raised in the criminal appeal included the credibility of the prosecution's case, consideration of the defense version, and the caste of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving charges beyond all reasonable doubts and highlighted the lack of evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and any deposited fine amount was to be refunded to them. Their bail-bonds were discharged, and the record of the trial court was to be sent back for necessary compliance.

JUDGEMENT

The appellants in this case have challenged the judgment passed on 14.12.2007 by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act"), Panna, in Special Case No.15/2007. The appellants were held guilty under that judgment for the offence of Section 294 IPC and sentenced with a fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 353 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, with default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days, 1 month and 1 month in respective defaults of payment of fine.

2. The facts of the case may be summed up as, the complainant B. P. Ahirwar was posted as Thana Prabhari, Police Station Devendranagar, and was on a patrol duty on the night of 2.10.2006; it was the day of Dussehra and besides the programme of Ravan Dahan, an orchestra programme was also orgaized in the city; the venue of this orchestra programme was near the Police Station, Devendranagar; complainant along with his police staff reached the venue of orchestra programme and found that the appellants were causing obstruction in peaceful performance; they were asked by complainant Thana Prabhari B. P. Ahirwar to come off the stage and as they did not concede, Thana Prabhari B. P. Ahirwar went on to the stage but he was pushed by appellant Sukhdev; the appellants were hurling obscene abuses to him and they also insulted him by his caste; on account of this act of appellants, obstruction was caused in the discharge of public duty of complainant; he got an FIR registered against the appellants; they were arrested and investigation was undertaken. After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial followed and under the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3 . The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the impugned judgment is bad in law and on facts as the learned trial court believed an improbable story of prosecution and erred in holding the appellants guilty; it also failed to give proper consideration to the defence version while passing the impugned judgment. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the appellants should be acquitted.

4 . The State has opposed the present appeal. Incidentally, arguments only on behalf of Panel Lawyer for the State were heard as no one appeared on behalf of appellants to argue the matter finally.

5. The record of the trial court is perused.

6. The prosecution has, in this case, relied upon the testimony of total six witnesses. B. P. Ahirwar (P.W.6) is the complainant of this case, while Constable Sanjay Pateriya (P.W.1), Constable Sadik Hussain (P.W.2) and Head Constable Hari Shankar Tiwari (P.W.5) have claimed to have accompanied the complainant to the spot and to have witnessed the incident. M. D. Namdeo (P.W.4) is the Investigating Officer, while Ramavtar Sharma (P.W.3) is an independent witness, who was declared hostile. On behalf of appellants, two witnesses, namely Brijendra Singh (D.W.1) and Vinod Gupta (D.W.2) were examined. Documents of Exs.P-1 to P-10 were produced in evidence on behalf of prosecution of which Ex.P-1 is the arrest memo, Ex.P-5 is the spot-map and Ex.P-10 is the FIR, while rest of the documents are the police statements of witnesses.

7. The appellants have been convicted for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act on the ground that they insulted the complainant in a public place, who was a member of scheduled caste category. Interestingly, the statements of B. P. Ahirwar (P.W.6) are silent on the point of his caste. Not a word has been spoken by him that he belongs to scheduled caste category. Additionally, the appellants were not asked even a single question during their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the caste of complainant, therefore there is neither any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document