AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Original complainant hereby challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna in Special Case (Atro.) No. 22/2016 acquitting respondent no.1-accused from charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SCST Act”) and Sections 354, 504, 506 of IPC.
Before trial court, case set up by prosecution was that on 06.03.2016 accused respondent herein visited house of informant PW3, summoned her outside the house, abused her with reference to her caste and forced her to sit on his motorcycle. She raised hue and cry attracting attention of her husband PW4. Accused fled. Above episode was reported to police, resulting into registration of crime bearing no. 33/2016. After duly investigating the above crime, chargesheet was filed and accused faced trial vide above special case at which prosecution adduced evidence of in all 7 witnesses. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial court acquitted the accused. Hence the instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/informant would submit that, informant is a lady. That on the relevant day, accused had come to the house and by standing on the road in front of the house, he gave call to the informant and when she came out, he hurled abuses referring to the caste she belonged to, and that he also scuffled with her by attempting to force her to sit on his motorcycle and thereby there was outraging of modesty also. He pointed out that, informant raised alarm and so her husband, who was inside the house, came out. He was also party to the incident on both, caste abuse as well as outraging modesty. However, learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and merely because neighbours turned hostile, their versions are disbelieved. According to him, there is incorrect manner of appreciation of evidence and law. Hence, he urges for setting aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal
In answer to above, learned counsel for the respondent-original accuse would justify the acquittal by submitting that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges. According to him, independent witnesses like neighbours have not supported prosecution and there was only evidence of informant and her husband, but the same was also not consistent and rather husband was not party to the alleged episode at all.
Re-appreciated the evidence. It appears that though there are seven witnesses, independent witnesses i.e. neighbours Laxman Rama Boralkar (PW1) and Bhimrao Kashinath Divte (PW2) did not support prosecution. Only evidence that remained for consideration is that of informant PW3 and her husband PW4.
PW3 Informant deposed at Exhibit 17 that on 06.03.2016 accused came in front of her house and gave her call on which she came out, he hurled caste abuses by saying that, “Ye chambharin bai”, and then asked her to sit on motorcycle and when she refused, he caught her hands and scuffled with her and she raised hue and cry. Hearing the same, her son and husband came out and at that time accused proceeded ahead and while going also, he hurled caste abuses ie. “Chambharni tu maze sobat ali nahis, haramkhor” and he also issued threats to kill.
Her husband PW4, who is examined at Exhibit 21, deposed that, he was preset in the house with his wife and at that time accused came, gave call to his wife and so she went out and thereafter he heard noise and so he came out and he had seen accused sitting on motorcycle. He claims to have heard accused saying “Chambharin tu mazya motorcycle var bas, and again said “Chambharin tu mazya sobat ali nahis”. According to him, thereafter accused issued threats to kill his wife and ran away.
From the above evidence it is seen that, it is doubtful that husband was party to the incident, because he did not depose that accused had caught hands of his wife. The caste abuses allegedly narrated by his wife are also distinct than what he reported to have heard. Therefore it is doubtful whether he had actually seen the incident.
As stated above, therefore, what remains is only informant’s evidence, but there is no corroboration as none of the neighbours have supported her. Moreover, it has come on record that PW4 has filed similar complaint against one another villager of which he admitted in cross. Therefore, there are reasons to hold, as submitted, that PW3 and PW4 are habitual complainants.
Yet again, as submitted, there is inordinate delay in lodging report because occurrence of 06.03.2016 is apparently reported on 14.03.2016. Though explanation for delay is offered, PW4 husband could have set law into motion, but the same has not happened.
Therefore, case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore learned trial court committed no error in giving benefit of doubt to the accused. No case being made out, the following order is passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.