2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1366 2005 --------- [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 respectively passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge- Cum-Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.113 of 1998] --------- 1. Sarita Devi, W/o-Late Mahendra Maharaj 2. Jitendra Kumar Rai 3. Dharmendra Kumar Rai Both son of Late Mahendra Maharaj 4. Bina Rai 5. Raj Kumari 6. Mamta Devi 7. Urmila Kumari 8. Puja Kumari All are D/o-Late Mahendra Maharaj All the residents of village+P.O+P.S.-Jitpur, Dist.-Dhanbad …… Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 19.06.2026 Pronounced On 20/07/2026 1. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the informant. 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 2. It appears that the original appellant, Mahendra Maharaj, who has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 has died during pendency of the appeal and after his death, his legal heirs have been substituted vide order dated 19.12.2024. However, for the convenience, hereinafter referred as appellant. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 respectively passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.113 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant, Sitaram Bhuiya lodged a written report before the Jitpur Police Station stating inter alia that on 08.03.1994 at about 4:15 pm, the informant’s son was playing in the compound of Primary School, Jitpur. In the meantime, one teacher of the said school came out of the school abusing the son of the informant and started assaulting him due to which his son was injured receiving injuries on his hand and nose. It is further alleged that 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 the informant came to know about the occurrence from other students of the school and went there and saw that his son was weeping. It is further alleged that the informant’s son was also abused by the said teacher in the name of caste. It is also alleged that the accused teacher is in habit to misbehave with students, school teachers and girl students and previously prosecuted for the same. 5. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.86 of 1994 was registered for the offence under sections 341, 323 and 506 of IPC and sections 3/4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the case was transferred to the Competent Special Court for trial. The charge for the offence under section 3(i)(x) of SC/St Act was formed against the appellant, which was denied and claimed to be tried by the appellant. 6. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Sitaram Bhuiyan (informant) P.W.2-Dhaneshwari Devi(wife of informant) P.W.3-Ajay Kumar P.W.4-Tipan Yadav P.W.5-Anima Mitra P.W.6-Gurudas Bhattacharjee 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 P.W.7-Dr. Gautam Mukherjee P.W.8-Sita Ram Prasad P.W.9-Bhola Kumar Bhuiya (injured) 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, two documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1-Signature of P.W.1 on written report Ext.2-Injury report 8. The case of defence is that since the appellant prevented the children from throwing bricks and pelting stones in the premises of school, which was disturbing the class room and also injurious to other school students. Therefore, moderate punishment was given to the son of the informant by some school students and not by the present appellant. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 9. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that although the injured involved in this case belongs to Scheduled Caste community but the genesis of occurrence and circumstances under which the above occurrence has taken place clearly establishes that the appellant was not 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 aware about the caste, creed or religion of the injured boy. There is no evidence showing that the appellant has insulted or humiliated the injured boy by assaulting him or abusing him in the name of caste in a public place rather some students saw that the injured boy was pelting stones and bricks in the school premises, which was hazardous to cause any injury to any student. Therefore, moderate punishment was inflicted to the informant’s son. The factual background under which the occurrence took place and the evidence available on record does not constitute any offence within the provision of SC/ST Act. The case was lodged under the provision of SC/ST Act is clear cut misuse of said act. It is further submitted that after realizing the fault of the injured child in this case, the informant settled the dispute with the appellant outside the court because, it was a simple case falling under the provision of section 323 of IPC and compoundable in nature. But, interim application filed by the appellant jointly singed by the informant has been rejected by this Court earlier simply because the offence under SC/ST Act is not compoundable in nature. It is further submitted that on merits, this case falls under section 323 of IPC and no offence under SC/ST Act is constituted at all. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the charge leveled against him setting aside his conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record has very wisely and aptly recorded the findings of the guilt of the appellant for the offence under section SC/ST Act, which has been proved conclusively and requires no interference in this case, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. P.W.1-Sitaram Bhuiya is the informant. Admittedly, he is not eye-witness to the occurrence rather he was informed that a teacher, Mahendra Maharaj is assaulting his son, Bhola Bhuiya. Then he went to 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 Jitpur Primary School and saw that Mahendra Maharaj has caught hold of his son and assaulting him. This witness complained Mahendra Maharaj saying him that you are headmaster of the school and assaulting the child so brutally. Upon this, Mahendra Maharaj said that “दुसाद, चमार और भुइया को ललुआ ने बढ़ावा दे Ǒदया है, जहा जाना है जाओ, तुम Èया कर लोगे”. This witness has further stated that his son received injuries on his hand and blood was oozing from his nose and backside was also reddish. This witness brought his son to Jitpur Hospital and also went to Jitpur Police Station and lodged a written typed report and proved his signature as Ext.1. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that his son was not studying in the Jitpur Primary School rather he was a student of Dr. Bhim Rao School. He also admits that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the school was closed. He also admits that the teacher, Mahendra Maharaj also instituted a case against him with allegation that son of the informant, Bhola Bhuiya (injured) used to frequently pelting stones in the school premises. He also admits that the incident of 08.03.1994 but the case was lodged on 09.03.1994. P.W.2-Dhaneshwari Devi is the wife of the informant. After receiving information that the accused is assaulting her son, she along with her husband went to the place of occurrence and saw that her son 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 was being assaulted by the accused saying that “लालू के राज मɅ, मुसहर, दुसाद, चमार का मन बढ़ गया है”. The injured was brought to hospital and got his treatment. In her cross-examination, she admits that when she reached at the place of occurrence, the school was closed. She also admits that one case has also been lodged by the accused against her and her husband. This case was lodged on the next day of occurrence. The blood-stained clothes of her injured son were not presented before the police. She has denied his defence that her son frequently used to throw stones and brick bats in the school premises. Hence, she has lodged false case through her husband. P.W.3-Ajay Kumar is a student of class-6 and the son of the informant. This witness has stated that he along with younger brother, Bhola Bhuiya (injured) was playing outside the premises of Jitpur Primary School, then the headmaster assaulted his brother by lappar- thappar. The parents of this witness also came there and his brother was brought to hospital for treatment. He has stated nothing else. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he is not a student of Jitpur Primary School rather he was studying in another school and after school hour, he was playing at Jitpur Primary School along with his brother and other 7-8 students. He has denied the 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 suggestion of the defence that his brother was pelting stones in the premises of the Jitpur Primary School. Hence, he was scolded by the headmaster. P.W.4-Tipan Yadav has been declared hostile and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.5-Anima Mitra is an Assistant Teacher in Jitpur Primary School but he was on leave on the date of occurrence and not an eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness stated nothing specific about the incident in this case. P.W.6-Gurudas Bhattacharja is also an Assistant Teacher of Jitpur Primary Middle School. According to his evidence, he was working as an assistant teacher at Jitpur Primar School at the time of incident. Some students were playing in the school ground. Meanwhile, some boys started pelting stones and throwing brick bats due to which the headmaster got enraged and one boy was assaulted by him. Thereafter, Sitaram Bhuiya (informant) came and also scolded the headmaster and took away his injured son. In cross-examination, he admits that the incident of stone pelting was happening frequently for which they were trying to stop them. P.W.7-Dr. Gautam Mukherjee has examined the injured, Bhola Kumar on 09.03.1994 and found following: 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 (i) Abrasion on left arm 3” x 2” superficial in nature and opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. (ii) Swelling on back. This witness has proved the injury report as Ext.2. P.W.8-Sita Ram Prasad is another Assistant Teacher of Lodna, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.9-Bhola Kumar Bhuiya is the injured boy. He admits that he was playing in the school ground of Jitpur Primary School. Meanwhile, Mahendra Maharaj assaulted him by slippers on his head and ear causing bleeding injuries. He was treated at Jitput Hospital. In cross-examination, he admits that he used to pelt stone in the school and his father and mother have beaten the appellant by shoes for stopping him for pelting the stone. 15. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of the witnesses. It appears that P.W.3, Ajay Kumar, who is the eye-witness of the occurrence, has stated that while he was playing along with his brother, P.W.9, Bhola Kumar Bhuiya (victim) and 7-8 other students outside the premises of Jitpur Primary School, the headmaster of the school came out and assaulted his brother by lappar and thappar, but he has not given any statement regarding humiliation and insulting to him and his brother by the name of caste, even to his father and mother, when they came at the place of occurrence after getting information about the 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 assault to their son, Bhola Bhuiya by the accused, Mahendra Maharj. The injury sustained by the injured victim was opined to be simple in injury. It further appears that the only genesis of the dispute was the pelting of stones and brick bats on the roof and premises of the said school by the son of the informant and other students, which was objected by the headmaster, but in spite of objection, they were constantly pelting stones. Thereafter, accused, Mahendra Maharaj (since deceased) came out and got the victim, Bhola Bhuiya mild punishment from the students of the school. In this regard, the headmaster of the school lodged a case against the informant and his wife. It further appears that the informant and his wife after getting information about assault to their son, Bhola Bhuiya, came to the place of occurrence and assaulted the headmaster of the school by shoes but so far humiliation of the victim or the informant by calling them by his caste and creed has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses. It further appears that the accused, Mahendra Maharaj was also not aware about the caste, creed and religion of the victim injured at the time of occurrence and only to make the offence grave, the informant lodged this case under SC/ST Act. 16. In another aspect of the case, even if the evidence of P.W.1, informant and P.W.2, wife of the informant are taken to be true with regard to use of humiliating words against the victim and informant as “दुसाद, 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 चमार और भुइया को ललुआ ने बढ़ावा दे Ǒदया है” does not appear to be intentionally used to insult or humiliate the prosecution party rather the same appears to be general opinion. Simply expressing his opinion without intention to humiliate to the other, does not constitute the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, intention is the most important ingredients of this section, which prior to 2016 amendment read as follow:- “3. Punishment for offence of atrocities –(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- …………………. …………………. (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has committed serious error of law by convicting the appellant for the charges leveled against him without properly appreciating the evidence. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2005 and 30.09.2005 respectively passed by learned 1st 2026:JHHC:21547 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1366 of 2005 Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.113 of 1998 is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. This appeal is allowed. 18. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 20/07/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22 /07 /2026