Ramlakhan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22625 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramlakhan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                              ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1848 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMLAKHAN PATEL S/O BAHADUR PATEL, AGED
                           ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                           SELF HOUSE HARARE KA PURWA VILL. GADARPUR P.S.
                           AJAYGARH DISTT. PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI MUKESH K. PANDEY - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
                                 AJAYGARH DISTT. PANNA M.P. (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    GAJJU PRAJAPATI S/O LUDAKIYA PRAJAPATI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GADARWARA ROAD
                                 AJAYGARH PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 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 passed on 08.02.2020 by Special Judge (Atrocities) Panna in Special Case No.20/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo

20 days' 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 remained in custody from 05.03.2019 to 12.03.2019.

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 Special Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 323 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that on 02.03.2019, Gajju Prajapati lodged a report at Police

Station-Ajaygarh District-Panna against the appellant, which was registered as Crime No.65/2019 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SCt & ST (POA) Act. After investigation, police filed the charge- sheet against the appellant. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, whereas, defense examined one witness. Learned Special Judge by judgment dated 08.02.2020 acquitted the appellant from the charges punishable under Section 294, 506, 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, however, convicted the appellant under Section 323, 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act and sentenced him as stated herein above. Prosecution witness-PW/1-Gajju Prajapati deposed the incident and involvement of present appellant in the offence. His statement was duly supported by PW/2-Ramla, however, both of them were declared hostile upto some extent. So far as causing injury to Gajju by the appellant is concerned, the same was deposed by them in Chief examination itself. PW/4- Dr. Umashankar Patel explained the injuries, PW/6-Vijay Kumar proved the signature of SDO on Caste Certificate (Exhibit-P/3) issued by SDO certifying the caste of the complainant that he belongs to schedule caste. The defense

witness stated that he was present at the time of incident and the appellant has not caused any injury to complainant. Learned Special Judge after due appreciation of evidence passed the judgment of conviction and no error is found in said judgment. Hence conviction under Sections 323 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 is upheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2019, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record, there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 323 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and incident is in respect of some work assigned to the complainant by the accused and appellant remained in custody from 05.03.2019 to 12.03.2019, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine amount of Rs.1000/- is maintained. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount (if not already deposited) within a period of two months from today. The appellant is o n bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

6. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(VINAY SARAF) V. JUDGE nd