2026:JHHC:21530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 ------ 1. Chhatu Sah, Son of Late Hazari Sah, 2. Arvind Sah, Son of Shri Chaatu Sah, Both are resident of Village – Pirojpur, P.S. Meharma, Dist.- Godda … .... …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bimla Devi, W/o Krishna Deo Mehtar, R/o-Vill- Pirojpur, P.S. Meharma, Dist. Godda .... .... .... Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 19.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th April, 2005 passed by learned Special Judge-cum-1st Addl. Sessions judge, Godda in Special Case No. 01 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act and 323, 341 and 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, further R.I. for 4 months under Section 323 IPC, R.I. for 15 days under Section 341 of the IPC. However, no sentence has been passed under Section 354 of the IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 2 Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.12.1999, at about 7 am, the informant along with husband Krishan Dev Mehtar and her son namely Manoj Mehtar and Dilip Mehtar were sitting by the bare fire. In the meantime, co- villager Chhatu Sah came and complained that her pigs has damaged his maize crop. The informant replied that it is not her pig. Then, informant along with her son and accused went to see whether the pig belongs to informant or not and found no pig there. Upon this, the son of the informant asked as to why the accused person told lie, then, the accused persons assaulted with hand and lathi. When, informant came to rescue her son, she was also assaulted with hand and her blouse was torn and forcefully dragged her to the ground. On raising alarm, her younger son came and he was also assaulted by the accused persons. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Meharma P.S. Case No. 162 of 1999 was registered against the above named accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354/34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act and 323, 341 and 354 of the IPC against the accused persons and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 3 where Special Case No. 01 of 2001 was registered. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 Manoj Mehtar P.W.-2 Krishna Mehtar P.W.-3 Dilip Mehtar P.W.-4 Krishandeo Mehtar P.W.-5 Vimla Devi (Informant) P.W.-6 Dr. Pravesh Paswan P.W.-7 Praful Kumar Jha (Advocate’s Clerk) 5. Apart from oral testimony, several documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:- Ext.1 Injury Report of Manoj Mehtar Ext.2 Signature and endorsement on written Report by the then officer- in-charge Sanjay Kumar Ext.3 Signature and endorsement on the formal F.I.R. by the then officer-in- charge Sanjay Kumar 6. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness namely:-D.W.-1 Nakul Pd. Sah 7. Apart from oral testimony, the defence has also examined some documentary evidence:- Ext.A The receipts granted by Firozpur Cattle Pound on 15.12.1999 Ext.A/1 The receipts granted by Firozpur Cattle Pound on 20.12.1999 Ext.A/2 The receipts granted by Firozpur Cattle Pound on 27.12.1999 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 4 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them as stated above. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 9. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned trial Court has completely failed to consider the contradictory statements of the witnesses and arrived at wrong conclusion convicting the appellants under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). It is contended that investigating officer has also not been examined in this case to substantiate the case set up by the prosecution and the prosecution has totally failed to prove its case. The Doctor (P.W.-6) who examined the injured Manoj Mehtar has opined that all the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance but the injury report does not support the case of prosecution. There is no evidence that accused persons used any filthy language or remarks in the name of caste of the victim. It is further submitted that no independent witnesses has corroborated prosecution story, rather, all are interested witnesses including the informant giving contradictory evidence to each other regarding place of occurrence and manner of occurrence which has been ignored by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants, which is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 5 Submissions on behalf of the State 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellants that they have assaulted the informant party and also committed the offence under SC/ST Act, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, reasons and decision: 11. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 12. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” 13. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case, during trial. P.W.-1 Manoj Mehtar is the son-cum-injured witness of the informant, who has deposed that he along with his mother and younger brother were sitting by the fire, in the meantime, Chhatu Sah came and complained about damaging the maize crop, then, he along with his mother 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 6 went to the field of Chhatu Sah and found no pig, so he asked Chhatu Sah as to why he spoke lie, upon this, Chhatu Sah and Arvind Sah both assaulted this witness with Lathi and slapped. It is deposed that the accused persons also assaulted his mother and torn her blouse. He further states that he went to the Police Station with his mother who lodged the case. He was also treated in the Hospital. He also denies that before the occurrence, his pigs were taken to cattle pond by the accused. He admits that there was a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. with the accused person. P.W.-2 Krishna Mehtar has deposed that he was also sitting by the fire when the Chhatu Sah came and complained about the damage of maize crop and stated the same version as P.W.-1. P.W.-3 Dilip Mehtar is the elder son of the informant who has also corroborated that his younger brother and mother were assaulted by the accused persons and blouse were torn. P.W.-4 Krishandeo Mehtar has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to market and after his return, his wife Vimla Devi and sons told him about the occurrence. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness. P.W.-5 Vimla Devi is the informant who has deposed that she along with her sons were sitting by the fire, in the meantime, Chhatu Sah came and complained about 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 7 damaging the maize crop, then, she along with her son and Krishna Mehtar (P.W.-2) went to the field of Chhatu Sah and found no pig, so her Son Manoj Mehtar(P.W.-1) asked Chhatu Sah as to why he spoke lie, upon this, Chhatu Sah and Arvind Sah both assaulted her son with Lathi, Danda and Fist. She further deposed that when she tried to rescue, she was also assaulted and torn her blouse. P.W.-6 Dr. Pravesh Paswan posted at Primary Health Centre has examined Manoj Mehtar and found the following injuries on his person:- i. Abrasion over the posterior surface left forearm 1”x1” with red colour. ii. Bruise over the left face 2”x2” with red colour. Opinion:- All the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. This witness has also proved the injury report prepared by him. P.W.-7 Praful Kumar Jha is an advocate’s clerk who has proved the formal FIR and Endorsement in the written report marked as Ext.-2 and 3. 14. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness namely D.W.-1 Nakul Pd. Sah who has proved Ext. A, A/1 and A/2 which are receipts granted by Firozpur Cattle Pond on 15.12.1999, 20.12.1999 and 27.12.1999 showing that Chattu Sah and Arvind Sah lodged 11 pigs of Krishandeo Mehtar, the husband of the informant (P.W.-5). This witness has also 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 8 admitted that there was proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. with the accused persons. 15. For appreciating the main thrust of the contention raised by the petitioner, I find it convenient to refer to Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act:- “Section 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.-Punishments for offences atrocities –(1)whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe- ….. (xi) Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonor or outrage her modesty, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine. 16. In view of the above provisions, the essential ingredients to attract an offence under Section 354 of the IPC are (i) the assault must be on a woman, (ii) the accused must have used criminal force on her and (iii) the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending to outrage her modesty or knowing it to be likely that his act will thereby outrage her modesty. 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 9 So far as the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act are also the same such as (i) the assault must be on a woman, (ii) the accused must have used criminal force on her (iii) assault or use of criminal force must be with the intention to outrage her modesty or cause dishonor to her and (iv) the assault or criminal force was on a woman who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Trbie. 17. 17. On a bare reading of both sections, it is amply clear that the scope and object and the essential ingredients to attract the offence are same except the fact that Section (1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act is attracted only if the victim is member of S.C./S.T. and this provision was enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against the members of S.C./S.T. 18. In the instant case, from the perusal of aforesaid testimony of witnesses, it is crystal clear that there is no iota of evidence or indication that any atrocity was committed on the basis of the caste of the informant or his son. There is also no any injury report and material was exhibited to show any infliction of assault upon the informant Vimla Devi except injury report of the son of informant i.e. simple in nature and due to lack of above ingredients, the prosecution case does not stand proved under Section 354 of the IPC against the accused persons. It is also well established that a mere reference to 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 10 caste, without the accompanying requisite elements that establish the intent to dishonor or outrage modesty as mandated under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act holds no legal substance. In the F.I.R. also, there is no whisper about using any filthy language by the accused persons with any specific words in public place rather the occurrence took place in the premise of accused persons where maize crops were cultivated which also does not attract the offence under S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act. Offence under S.C./S.T. Act is not established merely on the fact that informant or victim is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of S.C. or S.T. for the reason that victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are on inimical terms but there is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim and informant’s party were member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.C./S.T. Act is not sustainable. It appears that all the prosecution witnesses including P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are family members who have deposed that the accused persons assaulted P.W.-1 Manoj Mehtar and P.W.-5 Vimla Devi and blouse of her mother was torn but no such cloth has been seized nor examined by the prosecution. Further it appears 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 11 that the Doctor has examined only one prosecution witness i.e. Manoj Mehtar and found the injuries simple in nature i.e. abrasion and bruise on the posterior surface of left forearm and left face, respectively which caused due to a trivial altercations between the parties on the issue of damaging maize crops. It also appears that P.W.-3 Dilip Mehtar, the younger son of the informant has deposed that his father were also sitting by the fire along with mother and elder brother but at the same time, there is specific deposition of his father himself that at about 5:00AM, his father had gone to market for sweeping and the occurrence took place at 7:00am when the accused person came to complain. This contradictory statement also cast a cloud upon the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it is also admitted fact that there was previous enmity between both the parties regarding the same dispute and some pigs were already submitted by the accused persons before Cattle Pond which is corroborated by D.W.-1 Nakul Pd. Sah. Therefore, the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is also not attracted in this case. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find merits in this appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants under Sections 323, 341 and 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities )Act passed by the learned trial Court in Special Case No. 01 of 2001 is hereby set 2026:JHHC:21530 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 576 of 2005 12 aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them and this appeal is allowed. 20. Appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026