State Of Chhattisgarh vs Tribhuwan Singh And Ors

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.4.2003 passed by Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2009/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (CG) in Special Case No.150/2000 wherein the said Court convicted

respondent Vijay Kumar Yadav for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the punishment till rising of the Court and to pay

fine of 1500/- with default stipulation. All the other respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 323, 325/149, 323/149, 147, 294,

506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.

As per the prosecution story, there was assault between two parties and two persons namely Vinod and Lahuri Prasad were injured in the said

assault. As per the version of Dr. Lata Dewangan (PW-3), complainant Vinod sustained fracture on his right ankle. Dr. OP Singh (PW-18) who

examined injured Lahuri Prasad on 22.02.2000 noticed the following injuries.

(i) Two lacerated wounds (split laceration) on the left hand/ palm measuring 02 x 0.25

(ii) Bruise (contusion) with tenderness on the left arm

(iii) Small lacerated wound on the right lower leg (front) with oozing of blood

(iv) Tenderness over the heel of right foot. As per the version of this medical expert, the injuries were simple in nature.

In the present case, as per the prosecution 22 persons were involved in the commission of offence but only five persons were named in the FIR.

Rest of the persons were not been named and no explanation has been given for not naming the others. In absence of explanation, the trial Court

opined that involvement of the all the respondents in the commission of offence is under cloud. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the issues and

opined that from the evidence of Lahuri it is only established that Vijay assaulted him. He deposed that all the respondents have assaulted him

repeatedly, but from the medical evidence it is found that he had sustained injury on his right leg and left hand/arm. Looking to the injuries, the trial

Court opined that the assault by all the 22 respondents is not substantiated by his evidence. Again from the evidence of Vinod who is the other injured

person it is not clear as to who really caused injury on his body. When a number of persons have been involved in the commission of crime, specific

role should be clarified during their evidence before the trial Court, but no such clarification was made by witness Vinod. Therefore, it was not

established that all the 22 respondents assaulted injured Vinod. There is material contradiction in the statement of the witnesses before the Court and

their version when recorded under Section 161 CrPC by investigating officer. After evaluating the evidence in its entirety the trial Court opined that

the only thing which is established is assault by Vijay on Luhari and Vijay was convicted accordingly. Evidence regarding other respondents was not

clearly establishing guilt. Evidence against other respondents was not clear regarding their involvement. Looking to the report against 22 respondents

after 10 days of the incident, the trial Court opined that there is other possibility of naming persons after having discussion and therefore, possibility of

involving a number of persons who are innocent can not be ruled out.

Luhari Prasad, claiming to be a member of Scheduled Caste, though filed caste certificate before the trial Court, no one proved his caste certificate.

Caste certificates of other complainants were also not proved.

Initially two children had altercation and that altered into scuffle between major persons. It is not a case which was initiated on the basis of caste

and therefore, the trial Court opined that offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 is not made out.

After going through the entire record and discussion which is a part of the judgment of the trial Court it is not a fit case requiring admission for full

consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in the motion stage itself.