A conviction under Section 323 IPC cannot be maintained if the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly with significant inconsistencies and a delay in filing the complaint.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-12-2025

In pursuance of order dated 25.09.2025, the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah has sent its report vide letter No. 747 dated 12.11.2025 which reveals that appellant no. 1 Dhuri Sah has already died accordingly, the appeal stands abated in respect of appellant no. 1 Dhuri Sah.

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1^st, West Champaran, Bettiah, Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with Trial No. 22 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant no. 2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3 23 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under the said section.

4. As per prosecution case, on 19.07.1992 at about 11:00 AM, the complainant Sheo Chand Baitha, was said to have put bucket into the well near his house in Khora village to draw water. The co-accused, Dhuri Sah (since deceased), had already lowered his bucket into the same well. Co- accused Dhuri Sah began verbally abusing complainant by calling his caste name saying, “Why did you put your bucket in the well while he was drawing water? My religion has been defiled.” Upon hearing co-accused Dhuri Sah’s shouts, the appellant no.2 Suresh Sah also arrived at the place of occurrence. The complainant, Sheo Chand Baitha, asked the co-accused Dhuri Sah to speak respectfully. Thereupon, both accused pushed and slapped complainant Sheo Chand Baitha, knocking him to the ground. The appellant no.2 Suresh Sah then forcibly snatched the complainant’s bucket, worth Rs.

75. Witnesses from the neighborhood arrived and intervened, thereby saving the complainant’s life.

5. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, Complaint Case No. 6000 of 1992 was registered under Sections 3 23 & 379 of the IPC and Section 3 (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant and others on 16.09.1993 under 23 & 379 of the IPC and (10) of the . Charges were read over and explained to the appellant no.2 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses. PW-1 Harihar Mahto, PW-2 Bhola Raut, PW-3 Tulsi Mahto, PW-4 Sheo Chand Baitha (complainant) and PW-5 Motilal Yadav.

7. Prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence on record.

8. Defence has produced four witnesses namely DW1-Ramawati Devi, DW2- Ramayan Sah, DW3- Harkishun Das and DW4- Bihari Gaddi and also produced exhibit A to A/3 i.e. signature of the advocate on the complaint petition. However, defence of the appellant no. 2 as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 3 13 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.

9. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellant no. 2 and sentenced him as indicated in third paragraph of the judgment.

10. Following submissions have been ma