Surendra Lodhi @ Guddu Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22657 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Surendra Lodhi @ Guddu 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 VIVEK JAIN
                                             ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3511 of 2014

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SURENDRA LODHI @ GUDDU PATEL S/O SANTOSH,
                          AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL.
                          DUDWARA POLICE CHERGANWA, DISTRICT JABALPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH POLICE STATION
                          CHERGANWA AJK JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 T h i s appeal coming on hearing this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

T he present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction

dated 25.11.2014, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 354 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and R.I. for one year with fine Rs.2000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.09.2013, the complainant

had gone along with her niece to answer the call of nature at 11 am in the

morning. After relieving herself, she was returning back to her home and at that movement, the appellant came and caught hold of her hand with bad intention and tried to drag her to forest. When the complainant raised alarm, then the appellant uttered abuses to the complainant and run away.

3. Upon perusal of the deposition of prosecutrix (PW/2) and other witnesses as well as the police witnesses. The offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. is duly found to be proved against the appellant.

4. However, the caste certificate relied by the prosecution Exh.P/1 is issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and the said certificate does not bear any number or date. The Sarpanch was produced in witness box - PW/1 and in

her cross-examination, she said that she has issued the caste certificate only on the basis of surname of the prosecutrix. She does not know that what is the caste of parents of prosecutrix and also that she knows prosecutrix only since last 3 - 4 years. She also said that she was under impression that this caste certificate would be used for opening a bank account and hence, she has issued the certificate.

5. In view of the deposition of PW/1 and the fact that no caste certificate issued by the competent authority of the State Government is placed on record, the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained. This Court in the case of Chalaniya Dheemar vs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P. 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 171 has held that the caste status of the complainant or victim in such cases has to be conclusively proved by the prosecution.

6. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside. His conviction under Sections 294 and 354 of the I.P.C. is upheld.

7. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigating circumstances of the case. The appellant was 25 years of age at the time of incident and today he must be almost 35 years of age. The appellant was on bail during investigation and trial and he is on suspension of sentence during the pendency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he has misused the terms of bail during all these years. The appellant has already undergone jail sentence of 30 days. He has been facing investigation and trial and is also contesting the present appeal since last about 09 years.

8 . Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit to reduce the jail sentence to one already undergone by the appellant and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7,500/-.

9. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today failing which sentence originally awarded by the trial Court would come into force and the appellant will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.

10. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order for information and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellant be discharged.

(VIVEK JAIN) V. JUDGE rj