Ram Milan Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22636 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Milan Rathore 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. 2260 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAM MILAN RATHORE S/O DEEP SINGH RATHORE,
                           AGED                   ABOUT           22
                           YEARS,VILL.BILASAR,PS.CHAUKIAMARPUR,
                           PS.SAMNAPUR,DISTT.DINDORI
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI VINIT MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DINDORI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI PRASANNJEET CHATERJEE - 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 passed on 25.10.2005 by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No.27/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and in default,

to further undergo 11/2 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 has not remained in custody.

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 354 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST (POA) Act.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of record, it appears that on 2.12.2004, victim lodged a written complaint at Police Chowki-Amarpur against the appellant, which was registered as Crime No.137/2004 at Police Station-Samnapur District-Dindori under Section 354 of

IPC & 3(1)(XI) of SC & ST Act. During investigation, investigating officer has collected the caste certificate of the victim from Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat- Deori and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution has examined 9 witnesses whereas, defence did not examine anyone. So far as conviction under Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act, 1989 is concerned, caste certificate was not issued by any competent authority and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Deori was not competent to issue a caste certificate, therefore, the prosecution has not proved the caste of the victim by cogent document and evidence and conviction of appellant under Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act, 1989 is based on oral evidence regarding the caste and, therefore, same is not sustainable and is hereby set-aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charge of Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act, 1989. However, prosecution has examined the victim as PW/5, who has narrated the incident against the appellant and the statement of victim was duly supported by PW/1-Sunderlal, PW/2-Amratlal, PW/3-Anusuiya Bai, PW/4-Kamalwati Bai and all of them have proved that the appellant was involved in the offence and he assaulted the victim with an intent to outrage the

modesty of victim and so far as offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, the same was duly proved by the prosecution and the findings are based on due appreciation of evidence and, therefore, conviction under Section 354 of IPC is upheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2004, the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record, there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and appellant was of 21 years old at the time of commission of offence, I deem it proper to set-aside the jail sentence of the appellant and accordingly, the jail sentence is set-aside. However, fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount 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