Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind vs The State Of M.P. on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 561 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
GOVIND, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O HUKKAM SINGH
LODHI, R/O VILLAGE GANYARI, POLICE STATION
BANDA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASANNJEET CHATTARJEET - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.03.2002 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (Prevention of
Atrocities), Act, Sagar in S.T. No.34/2001 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo six
months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to further undergo one months
simple imprisonment and also convicted under Section 323 of IPC and fine of
Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo one months R.I.
2 . The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,
the appellant not remained in custody. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants
under Sections 323 of IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that complainant Muni son of Gangu lodged a report against
the present appellant and two others persons on 09.11.1999, registered as
Crime No.438/1999 at Police Station Banda District Sagar under Sections 341,
294, 323, 324, 506-B and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Act
wherein he alleged that the appellant and other co-accused persons stopped him
to abused with filthy language and caused injuries and insulted intentionally as
he belongs to ST and the accused were not of scheduled caste. After
registration of FIR and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The
prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of the case. The
defence has not examined any witness. The appellant in his examination under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accepted that the complainant belongs to Scheduled
caste whereas he belongs to Lodhi caste. The learned Special Judge by
judgment dated 09.03.2002 acquitted other co-accused persons and convicted
the appellants under Section 323 of IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, and
sentenced as stated herein above.
5. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, it appears that during the
investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the caste certificate of the
complainant but the same was not proved in evidence. Even D.K. Mishra,
S.D.O.P. (PW-5) did not deposed in respect of caste certificate in his chief
examination. Similarly A.K. Mishra, Inspector (PW-6) also did not deposed in
respect of the caste certificate of the complainant and the prosecution failed to
prove the caste of the complainant by cogent evidence. However, the trial Court
has accepted the caste of the complainant and accused on the basis of the
admission of accused in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
but it was the duty to the prosecution to prove the caste of the complainant and
prosecution has failed to prove the caste of the complainant, therefore, the
conviction under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is not based on due appreciation of evidence and is liable to be
set aside and is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act Prevention of Atrocities Act.
6. However, so far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is
concerned, the same is duly based on due appreciation of evidence. Muni (PW-
1), Kaliya Bai (PW-2), Arjun (PW-4) proved the incident and doctor Munnalal
Jain (PW-3) explained the injury sustained by the complainant and therefore, the
conviction of 323 of IPC is upheld.
7. The appellant is on bail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
8 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
R
