Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saddam Munda vs The State Of Madhya Pradersh on 18 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7470 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SADDAM MUNDA S/O MEHMOOD KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, VILLAGE AVALIPURA PS
GANDHWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI MUKESH SINJONIA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADERSH THROUGH
POLICE STATION GANDHWANI DISTRICT DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
passed the following:
ORDER
The present appeal has filed by the appellant being aggrieved against the
judgment dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dhar in
S.T.No.24/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under
Sections 342,363,366,376 of IPC Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.A.,3 years R.I., 5 years R.I., 10 years
R.I.,10 years R.I., Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.1,000/-,Rs.2,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 18-11-2022
17:32:36
,Rs.2,000/-,Rs.2,500/- with default stipulations.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
assailing the findings of conviction and sentence for offence under Sections
342,363,366,376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 but challenging the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the ingredients of the said Section
before the amendment are missing in this case.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 03.02.2015 a report was lodged
by the prosecutrix PW-1 alleging that she is studying in class XIIth and residing
in a rented house of Pidu Singh Sisodiya alongwith her friends. On 02.02.2015
near about 8:00 P.M. when she went to the shop to purchase something, at that
time, the appellant came there on the motorcycle and he caught hold of her hand
and forcibly took her in a house situated in front of Girls Higher Secondary
School Gandhwani, where she was kept in a room. The appellant closed the
room and thereafter committed rape upon her. When she shouted Shubham and
Ritesh came there and she was taken to the Police Station. The police registered
FIR against the appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined and the
doctor gave definite opinion of commission of rape. Even the FSL report is
also against the present appellant. On the basis of the evidence collected by the
prosecution vide judgment dated 17.09.2018 the appellant has been convicted.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place on
03.02.2015. Section 3(2)(v) before the amendment reads as under:-
"(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property on the ground that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine"
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 18-11-2022
17:32:36
According to the aforesaid Section, if offence under the Indian Penal
Code which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
against a person or property committed on the ground that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member, then only, accused is liable to be convicted for offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alongwith the Sections
of IPC.
In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution as well as the
prosecutrix that the offence on which the appellant has been convicted has been
done only on the ground that she belongs to the reserved category.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the
statement and the cross examination of PW-1 in which she has nowhere stated
that appellant was aware of the caste and he abducted and raped her and that
she belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. He placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khuman Singh vs. State
of M.P. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763 whereby the Apex Court has held
that if the offence against a member of the SC/ST has been committed
unknowingly that they belongs to particular community, the conviction is not
sustainable under the aforesaid section.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
under Sections 342, 363, 366, 376 of IPC, Section 3/4 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is maintained and the conviction
under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 18-11-2022
17:32:36
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 18-11-2022
17:32:36
