The acquittal of accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the principle that enmity can lead to false implication.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 24-09-2024

Heard learned counsel for the informant-appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Session Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) on 14.07.2023 in Gopalganj SC/ST Case No. 48 of 2017, Registration No. 270 of 2017. By the judgment under appeal, the three accused-respondent nos. 2 to 4 who were facing trial for the charges under Sections 341 /34, 323/34, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 3(i)(r) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) and Section 3(i)(w) of the SC/ST Act have been acquitted.

Prosecution Case

3. As per the prosecution story which is based on the written application submitted by the informant, namely, Sarda Ram (PW-4), on 01.11.2017 in the evening hour, at about 04:00 PM, Ashok Mishra, Kashi Mishra and Jai Prakash Mishra, all of village- Baijalaha, Post- Ratanpur, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Gopalganj along with other unknown persons came armed with lathi, danda and they started destroying the residential house of the informant. It is alleged in the written report that when he and his wife asked the accused persons not to do so, Ashok Mishra abused him in his caste name saying that he had defeated his father in the case, therefore, he and his family would not be left alive. The informant further alleged that the accused started assaulting him, his wife and children and on protest, he abused him and threatened to destroy him, as he had got connection to the highest level. Kashi Mishra and Jai Prakash Mishra also assaulted and abused them. Lastly, the informant alleged that in public view, he and his family members were abused and they were asked to vacate the land within two days, failing which he and his entire family would be sent to jail.

4. On the basis of this written application (undated), the police registered SC/ST P.S. Case No. 48 of 2017 dated 08.11.2017 under Sections 341 , 323, 504/34 IPC and Section 3(i) (r)(w) of the SC/ST Act. From the formal FIR, it would appear that though the occurrence took place on 01.11.2017, information in this regard was received in the police station on 08.11.2017 at 11:00 AM and the case was registered. The FIR was received in the court of learned Special Court of A.D.J.-1^st on 13.11.2017. Therefore, it is an admitted position in this case that while the occurrence was reported after seven days, the FIR was received in the learned court after five days of the occurrence.

5. After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against all the three accused persons. In the chargesheet, altogether five witnesses were mentioned as prosecution witnesses, one of them is Lakshman Bind who is the Sub-Inspector of Police. Four of them are the informant, his brother and close family members. One of the witnesses named in the chargesheet, namely, Hirdaya Mishra died before his deposition, so he could not be examined in this case.

6. After taking cognizance of the offences as per the chargesheet, the learned Special Judge explained the charges to the accused persons who denied them and claimed to be tried. Charges were framed under the various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST Act as stated hereinabove.

Analysis of the Evidences

7. In course of trial, the informant was examined