Inconsistency in Testimony and Unexplained Delay Vitiate Prosecution Under SC/ST Act and IPC Section 323

The appellants challenged their conviction by the Special Judge, Bokaro, for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 323/34 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on July 14, 2003, the appellants intercepted the informant (P.W.-5), a member of the Harijan community, near Ratanpur Kowa Dara, insulted him with casteist slurs ("SALA HARIZAN..."), and assaulted him with sticks

The defense contended the case was a false implication arising from a land dispute where the informant pressured the appellants to sell additional land

The appeal was preferred on grounds of a four-day delay in the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and material contradictions among witnesses

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under the SC/ST Act and IPC beyond reasonable doubt given the delay in FIR and material contradictions in witness testimonies

2. Whether the alleged occurrence took place in "public view" as required to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act

The court applied Section 3(1)(x) [renumbered as 3(1)(r)(s) by amendment] of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which requires intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in any place within "public view"

It further applied Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code regarding voluntarily causing hurt

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that material contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging an FIR (four days in this instance) can render the prosecution's case suspicious and unreliable

The High Court found several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. First, the scriber of the written report was not examined, making the initiation of the criminal case doubtful

Second, the informant's (P.W.-5) testimony during trial significantly diverged from his original FIR statement regarding which specific accused used the casteist slurs and the manner of assault

Third, while P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 claimed to be eye-witnesses, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-8) confirmed they had originally given hearsay statements

The court noted that the place of occurrence was a "lonely place" and not within "public view," which is a prerequisite for a conviction under the SC/ST Act

Finally, the lack of an injury report or any visible marks of violence observed by the I.O. contradicted the allegations of a brutal assault with sticks

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 29, 2009, and May 1, 2009. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds