Allowed

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Oct 2019Cr.A(SJ)/299/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act for using the word 'Sala'. High Court set aside conviction, quashed sentence due to uncorroborated evidence and lack of corroborating witness or medical injury report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appeal allowed; appellant discharged from bail bond liability.

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray Vs State of Jharkhand — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 299 of 2006

¶2

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2006 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey, 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in G. R. No. 05 of 1997.

¶3

--Tapeshwar Ray @ Tomeshar Ray … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --For the Appellant : Mr. K.K.Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. ---

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶6

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

¶8

State.

¶9

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2006 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey, 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in G. R. No. 05 of 1997 whereby and whereunder this appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST P. A. Act, 1989 and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, S.I. for additional six months.

¶10

3. The alleged incident is of dated 27.01.1997. It has been alleged that the accused Tapeshwar Ray has assaulted the informant Kunwar Mahli on 27.01.1997 when he went to the house of Mukhia (Balbhadra Oraon) in connection with Indira Awas where the accused Tapeshwar Ray was present and has assaulted the informant and has demanded some money by saying that he spent some money in the process for sanctioning Indira Awas. After this incident, a complaint case has been filed on 25.02.1997 and upon which an FIR has been registered on 21.03.1997.

¶11

4 . On the basis of complaint case, Gumla P. S. Case No. 65 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 384, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶12

5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, in which he pleaded not guilty.

¶13

6. During trial, altogether five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and one witness has been examined on behalf of the defense. P. W. 3,

¶14

Bhikhari Oraon is hearsay witness. P. W. 4, Krishna Baraik and P. W. 5, Chaturdhan Pradhan are formal witness. P. W. 1, Kunwar Mahli is the informant, who has deposed that he was abused by the accused by using ‘Sala’. There is no whisper in the deposition or in the complaint petition that he had been humiliated being a member of SC/ST community. Further P. W. 1, who is informant, has admitted in his cross-examination that there is land dispute between him and the accused person. The incident has been alleged to be happened in the presence of Mukhia, who has not been examined. Further defense has produced D. W. 1- Kesho Ray for defense of alibi.

¶15

7. From perusal of the material on record, it transpires that allegation of assault has not been found proved. This incident has not been accepted by the Trial Court. Considering the materials on record charge under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act has been found proved for using the word ‘sala’ in the public place in the presence of Mukhia, but the said Mukhia has not been examined. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are hearsay and formal witness. In such circumstances, since evidence of informant has not been corroborated and also there is no medical evidence of injury. The Trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charges made under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

8. Considering the entire material available on record, this Court finds that conviction of the present appellant under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act is not sustainable. Accordingly judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2006 passed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey, 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Gumla in G. R. No. 05 of 1997 is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

¶17

9. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶18

(Rajesh Kumar, J)

¶19

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 11^th day of October, 2019 kamlesh/NAFR/

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapeshwar Ray Alias Tomesher Ray v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Giri Vs State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mistry Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badri Kewat Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Nakal Mahamarik And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Narayan Giri Vs State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mistry Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badri Kewat  Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Nakal Mahamarik And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Mandal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Badri Kewat Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand