Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2761 of 2000
BETWEEN:-
DEVRAJ, S/O BHAGAT SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE,
BICHHIA, POLICE STATION BICHHIA, DISTRICT
MANDLA (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI UMESH TRIVEDI -ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, POLICE STATION
BICHHIA, DISTRICT MANDLA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI-PL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2000
passed by Special Judge Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.40 of 2000, whereby the learned
trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
f o r 6 months and further directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that 11.11.1999 at about 8.30 PM
the accused is said to have gone to country liquor shop for purchasing liquor.
The complainant was working as a salesman in the said shop. There was some
altercation between teh complainant and the appellant in the matter of purchase
of liquor. The appellant is said to have hurled caste abuses to the complainant in
terms of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Though the appellant was charge sheeted under section 294, 506
Part-II of the IPC but the court below has convicted the appellant only under
section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and awarded minimum of the sentence.
4 This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution. The trial court has relied upon the caste certificate
Ex.P-6 to hold that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Tribe
community. Upon perusal of the said certificate, it is revealed that this caste
certificate is issued by an administrative committee of gram panchayat. It is on a
plain paper and certifies the caste status and residence status of the
complainant. The person issuing this certificate was not produced in the witness
box and caste certificate was proved by the Investigating Officer. The
Investigating Officer has not issued this certificate. It is not in dispute that the
gram panchayat is not a competent authority to issue caste certificate and even
the person issuing this certificate was not examined in the witness box.
5. Further the complainant was examined as PW-1 and in his cross
examination the complainant has stated in para-4 that the accused knows the
complainant only by his surname and does not know the complainant by his
caste. Thus, the caste certificate was not proved by the prosecution beyond the
reasonable doubt and even in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the
appellant has expressed ignorance of caste status of the complainant. Further
para-4 of the deposition of the complainant itself show that the appellant did not
know about the caste of the complainant.
6. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellant under
section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained. The appellant stands
acquitted and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.10.2000 passed by Special Judge Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mandla in Special Case No.40 of 2000 is set
aside.
7. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
8. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court
record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
9. With the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
tarun
