AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.5.2001 and order of sentence dated 25.5.2001 passed by Shri Rameshwar Tiwary, Special Judge, S.C. and S.T.(P.O.A.) Act, Palamau at Daltanganj in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 1995. against the appellants namely Sudama Giri, Shankar Giri, Ritesh Kumar @ Munna Giri by which all the three appellants have been found guilty for the offence u/s 323, 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo S.I. for three months. Further, the trial court has convicted the appellants u/s 3 of the S.C/S.T. (P.O.A) Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months each with both the sentences to run concurrently.
The prosecution case was started on the F.I.R. given by the informant, Suresh Ram in which he has stated that he was assaulted for not doing the work of the accused persons, disobeying the order of appellant, Sudama Giri who asked the informant to clean the grain from the paddy chaft because the air was blowing fast. He was called ''chamar'' by the accused persons and subsequently the accused persons again came and assaulted him and his wife. On the basis of which the police registered a case u/s 323/448 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet. Learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the case and committed the case to the court of Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.
It appears that during the trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses including C.W.1 Dr. Kanhaiya Singh to bring home the charges against the accused persons. P.W.1 is Geeta Devi, wife of the informant and one of the victim. P.W.2 is Suresh Ram, informant himself. P.W.3 is Ramdeo Yadav. P.W.4 is Mujibul Khan, constable is a formal witness who has simply proved the F.I.R. Dr. Kanhaiya Singh, the Medical Officer of Hussainabad P.H.C., who examined and treated the informant and his wife, has been examined as C.W.1 u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
The learned court below after going through the evidences on record found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons named the informant, Suresh Ram or his wife by his caste ''chamar'' in public and in that view of the matter the conviction u/s 3 of the S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.) Act is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Further, it has been submitted that no doubt there is allegation of assault and it has already been proved by the medical evidences i.e. by C.W.1 that the injuries were simple in nature for which this long drawn litigation of 17 years (since 1993) is sufficient punishment plus the accused persons must have gone to jail during the initiation of the case and during the trial.
Learned Counsel for the state has opposed the prayer.
After going through the prosecution witnesses, I find that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, all have stated that the assault took place and the doctor has found the injuries on the person of P.W.2, Suresh Ram, informant of the case and P.W.1, Geeta Devi, wife of the informant, which are simple in nature and hence the learned court below has rightly found the appellants guilty u/s 323 of the I.P.C. However, there is no evidence of naming ''chamar'' by the appellant in the public.P.W.1 has stated in para 5 that while she was coming to the police station along with her husband, the accused persons started abusing them by saying that '' a chamar cannot go to the police station. But on hulla, when the villagers came there, nothing was said in the presence of the villagers and this part of the occurrence is not supported from the F.I.R. The informant, P.W.2 has stated nothing with regard to the uttering of the name of the caste. P.W.3 has also stated nothing with regard to insulting informant and his wife by taking the caste name.
In that view of the matter, I find that there is no evidence to support the conviction of the appellants u/s 3 of the S.T./S.C. (P.O.A.) Act and accordingly all the aforesaid three appellants are acquitted from the charge u/s 3 of the S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.) Act.
So far as the conviction of the appellants u/s 323 and 448 of the I.P.C. is concerned, I have already observed that the prosecution has proved the charges for which the accused / appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months. However, considering the fact and circumstances that all the accused and the informant are from same village and they were working right from before as master and labourer respectively and the case is of 1993 for which the appellant have undergone 17 years of rigor of trial and they have been sufficiently punished for the same. Hence, in the above circumstances, the appellants are not sent to the jail again and they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.