Judgment

15/02/2024 The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 22/2017 whereby, the learned trial court while acquitting the respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though convicted them for offence under Sections 341 & 323/34 IPC but granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 15.06.2017, the complainant submitted a written report before the SHO, Police Station, Kelwa to the effect that on 14.06.2017 when he alongwith his brother had gone to Bus stand for playing volley ball, at that time, the accused persons while verbally abusing his brother, told him that he can’t play with them being belonging to a lower caste. Meanwhile 5-6 other persons also came and started beating him and his brother with sticks.

On this report, the FIR was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the respondents. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondents for offence under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 341, 323/34 IPC.

The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but no witness was examined on defence side.

After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the accused respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted them for offence under Sections 341 & 323/34 IPC but granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act vide its judgment dated 28.08.2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence mechanically acquitted the respondents from offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the fact that the complainant Dinesh Chandra and his brother Ram lal have specifically stated that the accused respondents abused them using caste oriented language in a public place and also caused injuries to them. Though the learned trial court convicted the respondents for offence under Section 341, 323/34 IPC but granted benefit of probation to the respondents. It is submitted that the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and have categorically stated that the accused respondents had assaulted the injured, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondents but the court has adopted a lenient view without any valid reason. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for the appellant.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent accused vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that learned trial court Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from offence offence under Section 3(1)(s) & 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.

From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted the accused respondents for offence under Sections

341, 323/34 IPC on the basis of statement of the witnesses so also the injury report of injured. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act agains