Teerath Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21195 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Teerath Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2023

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                               1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741 of 2010

                           BETWEEN:-
                           TEERATH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI S/O KISHANLAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, VILL SONEGAON, POLICE
                           STATION MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           STATION SC & ST (ATROCITIES), DISTRICT BETUL
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              JUDGMENT

None for the appellant.

2. Since nobody is appearing for the appellant, Shri Pravesh Naveriya, learned counsel present in the Court, is appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist the Court.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Betul in Special case No.85/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 354

of IPC read with Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''SC/ST Act'') and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for One year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months was also directed.

4. Shri Pravesh Naveriya, learned amicus curiae submits that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant had produced her caste certificate (Ex.P-5), which is issued by the Sarpanch and Sarpanch is not the competent authority to issue caste certificate. Caste certificate is to be issued either by the Tehsildar or by the Sub Divisional

Officer, as the case may be and thus, in absence of caste certificate being proved, basic ingredients of the case that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, stood disproved and, therefore, there could not have been any conviction under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act.

5. This submission is not opposed by Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and in view of such facts that complainant could not produce any cogent evidence to prove her caste or the competent caste certificate, conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. In Chalaniya Dheemar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012 MP 189, it is held that no certificate of any competent authority to that effect was produced or proved before the Court and, therefore, conviction cannot be maintained under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act in absence of legal evidence in the Court.

8. In Pillu Alias Pyarelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR, 2012 MP 1309, it is held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of victim by any cogent and reliable document issued by the competent authority then mere oral deposition of witness would not deem to be proved.

9. Thus, since Sarpanch is admittedly not a competent authority to issue caste certificate and no competent caste certificate is made available on record, conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside.

10. As far as conviction under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, incident is of 10.05.2008. Prior to 2013 amendment in the Cr.P.C., Section 354 of IPC was compoundable and no minimum sentence was prescribed. Therefore, looking to the fact that the appellant had already undergone 1 day imprisonment and also remained in custody from the date of judgment i.e. 09.04.2010 to 06.05.2010, on payment of additional fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be deposited before the trial Court, appellant's conviction under Section 354, IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.

11. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2010 passed by learned Special Judge [SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Betul in Special Sessions Case

No.85/2008 is hereby modified to the extent as indicated above. As the appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are discharged.

12. In above terms, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

13. Record of the trial Court be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp