Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tawal Singh Lodhi And Ors. 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1317 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. TAWAL SINGH LODHI S/O MAKHAN SINGH LODHI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O GRAM SUNACHAR
TAHSIL PATAN POLICE STATION BELKHEDA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SONI SINGH S/O MASTRAM LODHI, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS R/O GRAM SUNACHAR TAHSIL PATAN
POLICE STATION BELKHEDA, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JHALKAN SINGH LODHI S/O BENI SINGH LODHI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNACHAR
TAHSIL PATAN POLICE STATION BELKHEDA,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI R.S. PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'Code') assails the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 26/07/2001 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act), Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.586/2000, whereby the
appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(10) of
SC/ST(POA) Act and under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
RI for 6 months and 1 month and to pay fine amount of Rs.300/- and Rs.200/-
for each offence respectively with default stipulation.
2 . As per prosecution story, on 23/06/2000 at about 10:00 p.m.,
complainant Banshilal (PW 2) belongs to Schedule Caste was returning after
doing labour work, appellants who were in front of school escorted him and
also hurling abuses on him and assaulted Banshilal (PW 2). When Tulsa Bai
(PW 8), wife of Banshilal came to intervene, she was also assaulted by
apellants. The FIR (Ex. P/2) was lodged to Police Station AJAK, Patan District
Jabalpur against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST(POA) Act and under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC
and injured were sent for medical examination. Investigation ensued and after
completion of it, charge-sheet was laid before the court of competent
jurisdiction.
3 . After examination of prosecution witnesses as adduced and
completing formality of getting explanation of the appellants for the
circumstances, which appears against them in the prosecution case under
Section 313 of the Code, learned Trial Court, duly appreciated the evidence on
record, vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as
mentioned here-in-above, which has been challenged by way of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that prosecution has failed to
prove that the complainant and his wife belongs to Schedule Caste community.
In this regard, learned counsel for appellants has drawn attention of this Court
towards statement of Sunderlal Tamrakar (PW 6) and vehemently argued that
mere admission of this witness in para no.2 of his cross examination that
Tahsildar was authorised to issue caste certificate (Ex. P/3), which was
erroneously issued by him , is sufficient to established that the caste certificate
issued by Sunderlal Tamrakar (PW 6) is not valid and under these
circumstances, conviction of appellants under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST(POA)
Act is not tenable. He further submits that he does not wish to press this appeal
on the point of conviction relating to other offences. As far as sentence is
concerned, he submits that the appellants were in custody from 06/07/2000 to
18/07/2000 ( about 13 days), therefore, considering the fact that they do not
have any criminal record, a lenient view may be taken as regards the sentence
and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5 . Learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently opposed the
prayer vehemently arguing that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is just
and proper, which need not be altered/modified to any extent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to the
offence under Section 323/34 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and
consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The
testimony of the complainants Banshilal (PW 2) and Tulsa Bai (PW 8) stands
duly supported with FIR (Ex. P/2), therefore, it cannot be said that the learned
trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction of the appellants
for the offence under Section 323/34 of I.P.C.
8 . So far as the conviction of appellants under Section 3(1)(10) of
SC/ST(POA) Act is concerned, the trial Court has committed grave error in
convicting them for aforesaid offence as caste certificate is an important
document in such cases and when Sunderlal Tamrakar (PW 6) himself admitted
that he has no authority to issue any caste certificate, inspite of that trial Court
treating the complainant as member of Schedule Caste Community, convicted
the appellants for aforesaid offence, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the conviction of appellants with regard to offence under Section
3(1)(10) of SC/ST(POA) Act is hereby set aside and they are acquitted for the
aforesaid offence and fine amount deposited by the appellants in this regard
before the trial Court shall be returned to them. So far as the conviction of
appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
9. As regards, sentence prayer made on behalf of the appellants appears
to be reasonable. Incident was not premeditated and occurred at sudden
impulse. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants. The factum of
custody has also not been disputed and looking to the facts that the appellants
are facing trial and present appeal for more than 23 years, therefore, the period
of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed subject to enhancing fine
amount of Rs.200/-each to Rs.1,000/- each, which will be paid to the
complainant as compensation. The appellants are directed to pay the remaining
fine amount within a period of two months from the date of passing of this
order, failing which they will have to undergone rigorous imprisonment for one
month .
10. Bail bonds and personal bonds of the appellants are hereby
discharged.
11. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent
forthwith to the concerned Court for information and necessary action.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
skt
