Special Leave Petition against acquittal of opposite parties in a special complaint case under SC/ST Act and IPC for assault and snatching. The High Court upheld the acquittal due to unreliable prosecution evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements.
s.l.a. is dismissed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court SLA No.42 of 2013 (3) dt.10-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.42 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Khagendra Ram Son Of Late Chedi Ram Resident Of Village - Salepur, P.S.- Phalka, District- Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Md.Hafiz Son Of Late Siraj Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar 2. Md. Aziz Sonof Late Siraj Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar 3. Md. Sanjar Son Of Md. Hafij Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar 4. Md. Razzaque Son Of Md. Hafij Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar 5. Md. Manjar Son Of Md. Hafij Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar 6. Samshad Son Of Md. Hafij Resident Of Village - Budel Bazar, P.S.Muffasil Katihar, District- Katihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 10-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present special leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge I, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 728 of 2010, whereby O.P. Nos. 1 to 6 have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(X) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution case is that the complainant being
Patna High Court SLA No.42 of 2013 (3) dt.10-04-2014
beneficiary under Indira Awas scheme was in need of bricks for the construction of the house under the scheme. One Aftab Alam persuaded the complainant to purchase the bricks from Budel. On 22.3.2010, at around 10:00 A.M. the complainant along with Aftab Alam, while going to purchase the bricks, was bashed by Md. Hafiz and Md. Aziz, who were drunk and was also abused by calling caste name and was thereby assaulted. On alarm being raised, other opposite parties came when O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 snatched Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant and O.P. No. 3 snatched a watch. Subsequently the villagers saved the complainant and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed.
On examination of the complainant on S.A. and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, processes were directed to be issued after cognizance being taken. On 18.04.2012 the charges were framed under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution examined six witnesses, but the witnesses were disbelieved by the Trial Court and the opposite parties were acquitted of the charges.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution witnesses have proved the charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The eye witnesses have been disbelieved on
Patna High Court SLA No.42 of 2013 (3) dt.10-04-2014
the basis of minor inconsistency in their evidences.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that witnesses have filed the case, since a case was earlier lodged by O.P. No. 2 Md. Aziz against the witnesses, hence they falsely deposed during the trial. Accordingly learned Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution witnesses.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that O.P. No. 2 earlier filed a case against the complainant’s side in which most of the witnesses are accused. P.W. 2 has admitted that his son is accused in the case lodged by Md. Aziz being O.P. No. 2, whereas P.W. 3 has admitted that his father is accused in the case lodged by Md. Aziz. P.W. 5 has also admitted the enmity between the parties from before. The inconsistency in the evidence is apparent from the fact that P.W. 6, the complainant has stated the distance between Salepur, the native village of the complainant to Budel, the place of occurrence between 40-45 K.M., whereas P.W. 8 has suggested the distance as 80 K.M. P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have stated that there are several brick-kilns in the native village of the complainant Salepur, then travelling so much distance for purchase of bricks has been rightly inferred by the Trial Court to be an unreasonable act. The complainant has also failed to state the name of the brick-kiln
Patna High Court SLA No.42 of 2013 (3) dt.10-04-2014
situated at Budel, where he went to purchase the bricks. P.W. 6 has failed to name any witness who was present at the place of the occurrence.
In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment impugned.
Accordingly the S.L.A. is dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Anil/Shageer/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the opposite parties in the special complaint case was legally sustainable.
Whether the inconsistency in prosecution evidence and lack of witnesses justified the Trial Court's finding.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Khagendra Ram Son Of Late Chedi Ram
Md.Hafiz Son Of Late Siraj
Md. Aziz Sonof Late Siraj
Md. Sanjar Son Of Md. Hafij
Md. Razzaque Son Of Md. Hafij
Md. Manjar Son Of Md. Hafij
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
