State of U.P v. Counsel for

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 12.7.2002 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Session Trial No. 913 of 1996 (State vs. Ram Nath) whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment he has to undergo six month imprisonment; under Section 323 IPC for six months imprisonment and under Section 504 IPC for three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, for six month rigorous imprisonment. Factual Matrix of Case

3. Written complaint Ex. Ka -1 was submitted by Dr. R.P.Singh on 15-03- 96. He stated that he was posted at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra Karnawal on 15-03-1996. Accused Ramnath, pharmacist of the hospital, came before him on the said day at about 01.15 p.m. after availing one month leave. He was absent from his duty for past 15 days and asked the informant to accept his joining. Informant told him to approach I/C C.M.O. for his joining. His reply enraged accused Ramnath and he started abusing him and took dao (sharp edged weapon) from his bag and assaulted him. On raising alarm, gatekeeper arrived there and accused fled from spot. On basis of Ex Ka-1, chick report Ex-ka-3 was prepared and F.I.R in case crime no. 33/96 under Section 307,323,324 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, was registered 2 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 against appellant on 15-03-1996 at 2:00 pm at P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut. Charges against appellant were framed under Section 307,323,324 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Appellant denied charges and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution produced six witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 Ramcharan stated that he was posted as gatekeeper at the time of occurrence. Accused who had returned from his leave was submitting his joining. But he was outside the room where the alleged incident occurred and he did not witness it. He further submitted that accused did not make any casteist slur.

5. P.W.-2 Dr.R.P. Singh stated that when he asked the accused to approach I/C CMO for submitting his joining application, he lost his temper and started yelling and abusing. He took out a dao from his bag and started assaulting. As a consequence of said assault, he suffered injuries on his head, neck, shoulder and hand. P.W.-1 Ramcharan arrived there after he raised alarm . Ramcharan went with him at police station to lodge FIR. During his cross examination, he said that firstly he got himself examined by Dr. Rajendra and then he went to police station. The accused had not submitted any application for joining but was asking to put his signature on attendance register. It was further submitted that his relationship with accused was normal before the incident. At the time of incident, none other than accused Ramnath was present in the room. Dao was blunt and not tooth edged. Blood splattered on the floor after attack. Ramcharan arrived there after five minutes of incident.

6. P.W.-3 Omprakash Tomar had proved the recovery of blood stained clothes. P.W.-4 Constable has proved the chick FIR. P.W-5, Retired S.I. Ram Sanehi, was entrusted the investigation of this case. He has stated F.I.R was registered on his directions . He recorded the statement of witnesses, went at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex Ka-5. P.W.-6 Jaipal Singh has proved the injury report Ex ka-2 which was prepared by Dr Rajendra Singh.

7. After the prosecution evidence was over, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. Findings of Learned Trial Court

8. Learned Trial Court has confined its findings on the testimony of injured Dr. R.P. Singh. It was held that incident of manhandling by accused cannot be ruled out under the circumstances that injured stopped the accused to put his signature on attendance register who was absent without any sanctioned 3 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 leave for past 15 days. Defense of false implication claimed by accused was considered, who alleged he was falsely implicated by injured Dr. R.P. Singh because he objected his conduct of taking money from the patients. It was observed that accused has not produced any evidence in support of alleged claim. After examining the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. R. P. Singh, it was held that accused without any provocation assaulted the injured and called his name by using casteist slurs. It was urged before Trial Court that prosecution had not proved the injury report by producing its author and hence said injury report cannot be read as evidence against accused. It was held that said injury report Ex Ka-2 was not only proved by P.W. 6 Jaipal but was also proved by the injured himself. After considering the injuries sustained by injured PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh, learned trial court observed that said injuries were not of such nature so as to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC. Hence, it held that accused at the most could be held guilty for offence under Section 324 of the IPC for the assault committed by him. After appreciating the entire evidence, the accused was held guilty for offences under Section 323,324, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that judgement of conviction passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable. Learned trial court has over looked the evidence and has also committed error by considering inadmissible evidence. Alleged incident has occurred in a room where none other than appellant and injured were present. Hence, the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Similarly, prosecution has not proved the injury report Ex. Ka. 2. The said injury report was prepared by Dr. Rajendra Singh. Said doctor was not produced by the prosecution rather said injury report was proved by PW-6 Jaipal Singh. Prosecution has not established any fact to suggest that either the said doctor was dead or was not available to tender evidence. Therefore, proving a document by producing a secondary witness without establishing the aforesaid fact is against the settled law of evidence.

10. He further stated that even if the story of prosecution is taken as true, at its face value, then also appellant can only be held guilty under Section 323 IPC .It was further submitted that learned trial court has also failed to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein referred to as Act, 1958), and has even not given any specific reason in the judgment for not extending the benefit of the above Act. Appellant at the time of occurrence was a Government Employee. He is a first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Hence, appellant is also entitled to avail benefit of the Act. 4 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 Argument of learned AGA

11. Conceding to the arguments placed by learned counsel for appellant, it was submitted by learned AGA that findings of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, however, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and punishment awarded to the appellant, benefit of the Act, 1958 can be extended to him. Conclusion

12. Heard learned counsels and perused the record of learned trial court.

13. It is apparent from the testimony of injured PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh, that certain quarrel between appellant and this witness occurred after appellant was insisting to put his signature on attendance register despite the fact that he was refused to do so by the witness. This witness has candidly stated that at the time of occurrence, none except the appellant was present in the room where he was sitting. It is manifest from the bare reading of FIR lodged by this witness that he has not made any allegation against the appellant that he abused him and or used castiest slurs. Allegation of abusing and making castiest slur was introduced at the time when witness was examined before the trial court. It is settled law that an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act is attracted only in a case where intentional insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is made in a place within "public view". In this case, alleged incident occurred in a room where no one except the appellant and the victim were present. Supreme Court in Swaran Singh and another vs. State (2008) SCC 435, has drawn a distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that an no offence will be made out under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act if it has been committed in such a public place which is not within a public view. From the foregoing discussions, it is manifest that evidence on record indicates that alleged offence was committed in a room and the allegation of insulting the victim by making castiest slur was introduced by the victim for the first time during the trial. Hence, in given circumstances, offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC.ST Act is not made out against the appellant. Similarly, PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh during cross- examination has admitted that dao employed by the appellant was not sharp edged rather it was blunt. However, his medical report suggests that he has sustained incised wounds. Deposition of injured does not corroborate with the medical evidence. Hence, appellant cannot be held guilty for committing the offence under Section 324 Cr.P.C. But the testimony of injured is sufficient to indicate that he was assaulted by the appellant. Hence, his conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC does not warrant any 5 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 interference.

14. Considering the nature of injuries along with the fact that incident in question had taken place about 23 years ago, appellant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, 1958.

15. In light of the above, the sentence of the appellant is modified. Instead of sending the appellant to jail, he is extended the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He is released on probation and is directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs 20,000/- along with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned. The accused- appellant shall deposit the fine within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner.

16. The appellant's conviction under Sections 323, 504 IPC is upheld and his conviction under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act is set aside.

17. In view of above, the instant appeal is partly allowed.

18. The Trial Court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment.

19. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. October 17, 2025 Ujjawal (Anil Kumar-X,J.) UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 12.7.2002 passed by Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Session Trial No. 913 of 1996 (State vs. Ram Nath) whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 324 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment he has to undergo six month imprisonment; under Section 323 IPC for six months imprisonment and under Section 504 IPC for three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, for six month rigorous imprisonment. Factual Matrix of Case

3. Written complaint Ex. Ka -1 was submitted by Dr. R.P.Singh on 15-03- 96. He stated that he was posted at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra Karnawal on 15-03-1996. Accused Ramnath, pharmacist of the hospital, came before him on the said day at about 01.15 p.m. after availing one month leave. He was absent from his duty for past 15 days and asked the informant to accept his joining. Informant told him to approach I/C C.M.O. for his joining. His reply enraged accused Ramnath and he started abusing him and took dao (sharp edged weapon) from his bag and assaulted him. On raising alarm, gatekeeper arrived there and accused fled from spot. On basis of Ex Ka-1, chick report Ex-ka-3 was prepared and F.I.R in case crime no. 33/96 under Section 307,323,324 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, was registered 2 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 against appellant on 15-03-1996 at 2:00 pm at P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut. Charges against appellant were framed under Section 307,323,324 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Appellant denied charges and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution produced six witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 Ramcharan stated that he was posted as gatekeeper at the time of occurrence. Accused who had returned from his leave was submitting his joining. But he was outside the room where the alleged incident occurred and he did not witness it. He further submitted that accused did not make any casteist slur.

5. P.W.-2 Dr.R.P. Singh stated that when he asked the accused to approach I/C CMO for submitting his joining application, he lost his temper and started yelling and abusing. He took out a dao from his bag and started assaulting. As a consequence of said assault, he suffered injuries on his head, neck, shoulder and hand. P.W.-1 Ramcharan arrived there after he raised alarm . Ramcharan went with him at police station to lodge FIR. During his cross examination, he said that firstly he got himself examined by Dr. Rajendra and then he went to police station. The accused had not submitted any application for joining but was asking to put his signature on attendance register. It was further submitted that his relationship with accused was normal before the incident. At the time of incident, none other than accused Ramnath was present in the room. Dao was blunt and not tooth edged. Blood splattered on the floor after attack. Ramcharan arrived there after five minutes of incident.

6. P.W.-3 Omprakash Tomar had proved the recovery of blood stained clothes. P.W.-4 Constable has proved the chick FIR. P.W-5, Retired S.I. Ram Sanehi, was entrusted the investigation of this case. He has stated F.I.R was registered on his directions . He recorded the statement of witnesses, went at the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex Ka-5. P.W.-6 Jaipal Singh has proved the injury report Ex ka-2 which was prepared by Dr Rajendra Singh.

7. After the prosecution evidence was over, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. Findings of Learned Trial Court

8. Learned Trial Court has confined its findings on the testimony of injured Dr. R.P. Singh. It was held that incident of manhandling by accused cannot be ruled out under the circumstances that injured stopped the accused to put his signature on attendance register who was absent without any sanctioned 3 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 leave for past 15 days. Defense of false implication claimed by accused was considered, who alleged he was falsely implicated by injured Dr. R.P. Singh because he objected his conduct of taking money from the patients. It was observed that accused has not produced any evidence in support of alleged claim. After examining the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. R. P. Singh, it was held that accused without any provocation assaulted the injured and called his name by using casteist slurs. It was urged before Trial Court that prosecution had not proved the injury report by producing its author and hence said injury report cannot be read as evidence against accused. It was held that said injury report Ex Ka-2 was not only proved by P.W. 6 Jaipal but was also proved by the injured himself. After considering the injuries sustained by injured PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh, learned trial court observed that said injuries were not of such nature so as to attract the offence under Section 307 IPC. Hence, it held that accused at the most could be held guilty for offence under Section 324 of the IPC for the assault committed by him. After appreciating the entire evidence, the accused was held guilty for offences under Section 323,324, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that judgement of conviction passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable. Learned trial court has over looked the evidence and has also committed error by considering inadmissible evidence. Alleged incident has occurred in a room where none other than appellant and injured were present. Hence, the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Similarly, prosecution has not proved the injury report Ex. Ka. 2. The said injury report was prepared by Dr. Rajendra Singh. Said doctor was not produced by the prosecution rather said injury report was proved by PW-6 Jaipal Singh. Prosecution has not established any fact to suggest that either the said doctor was dead or was not available to tender evidence. Therefore, proving a document by producing a secondary witness without establishing the aforesaid fact is against the settled law of evidence.

10. He further stated that even if the story of prosecution is taken as true, at its face value, then also appellant can only be held guilty under Section 323 IPC .It was further submitted that learned trial court has also failed to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein referred to as Act, 1958), and has even not given any specific reason in the judgment for not extending the benefit of the above Act. Appellant at the time of occurrence was a Government Employee. He is a first offender and has no criminal antecedents. Hence, appellant is also entitled to avail benefit of the Act. 4 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 Argument of learned AGA

11. Conceding to the arguments placed by learned counsel for appellant, it was submitted by learned AGA that findings of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, however, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and punishment awarded to the appellant, benefit of the Act, 1958 can be extended to him. Conclusion

12. Heard learned counsels and perused the record of learned trial court.

13. It is apparent from the testimony of injured PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh, that certain quarrel between appellant and this witness occurred after appellant was insisting to put his signature on attendance register despite the fact that he was refused to do so by the witness. This witness has candidly stated that at the time of occurrence, none except the appellant was present in the room where he was sitting. It is manifest from the bare reading of FIR lodged by this witness that he has not made any allegation against the appellant that he abused him and or used castiest slurs. Allegation of abusing and making castiest slur was introduced at the time when witness was examined before the trial court. It is settled law that an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act is attracted only in a case where intentional insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is made in a place within "public view". In this case, alleged incident occurred in a room where no one except the appellant and the victim were present. Supreme Court in Swaran Singh and another vs. State (2008) SCC 435, has drawn a distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that an no offence will be made out under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act if it has been committed in such a public place which is not within a public view. From the foregoing discussions, it is manifest that evidence on record indicates that alleged offence was committed in a room and the allegation of insulting the victim by making castiest slur was introduced by the victim for the first time during the trial. Hence, in given circumstances, offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC.ST Act is not made out against the appellant. Similarly, PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singh during cross- examination has admitted that dao employed by the appellant was not sharp edged rather it was blunt. However, his medical report suggests that he has sustained incised wounds. Deposition of injured does not corroborate with the medical evidence. Hence, appellant cannot be held guilty for committing the offence under Section 324 Cr.P.C. But the testimony of injured is sufficient to indicate that he was assaulted by the appellant. Hence, his conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC does not warrant any 5 CRLA No. 2902 of 2002 interference.

14. Considering the nature of injuries along with the fact that incident in question had taken place about 23 years ago, appellant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, 1958.

15. In light of the above, the sentence of the appellant is modified. Instead of sending the appellant to jail, he is extended the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He is released on probation and is directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs 20,000/- along with personal bonds before District Probation Officer concerned. The accused- appellant shall deposit the fine within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner.

16. The appellant's conviction under Sections 323, 504 IPC is upheld and his conviction under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act is set aside.

17. In view of above, the instant appeal is partly allowed.

18. The Trial Court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment.

19. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. October 17, 2025 Ujjawal (Anil Kumar-X,J.) UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad