Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh And Anr. vs State Of M.P. 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. 219 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
1. SANTOSH AND ANR., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
GOURIYA THANNA UNCHEHRA DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAM KHILAWAN S/O SHRI RUPPEY PATEL AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O GOURIYA THANNA - UNCHEHRA
DISTRICT SATNA
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
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 appellants/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2002
passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989) District Satna in Special Case No.2/2001, whereby the
learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant No.1 for commission of
offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and R.I. for six months respectively
and appellant No.2 for commission of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and
R.I. for six months respectively.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident took place on
04.09.2000 when the complainant had gone to answer the call of nature when
she was returning she was stopped in the way by appellant No.1 and he tried to
drag her towards nalla and touching her in-appropriately. When the
complainant raised alarm then other persons in the vicinity came running the
rescued the complainant. Later the appellant No.2 is alleged to have caused
simple hurt and abused the complainant when she went to complain about the
act of appellant No.1.
3 . Upon perusal of the record, it is seen that caste certificate of the
complainant is on record as exhibit P/1. This certificate is issued by Sarpanch
of Gram Panchayat. It is settled that Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not
competent authority to issue caste certificate. Thus the caste certificate issued
by the competent authority was not on record, thus, the prosecution has not
proved the caste of complainant.
4 . As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as
mentioned in para-1 above.
5. In view of the fact that no caste certificate issued by the competent
authority of the State Government is placed on record, the conviction under
Section of the aforesaid offences 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 appellants No.1 under Section
3(1)(xi) and appellant No.2 under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside.
However conviction under other provisions is maintained.
7. This Court has carefully considered the evidence of prosecution
brought on record before the trial court. The statement of complainant (PW/1),
Rmbai (PW/3) Shambhu Prasad (PW/5) and other witnesses. In view of the
statements of material witnesses, the finding of conviction under Section 354 of
I.P.C. seem to be well reasoned and I am unable to upset the said findings.
8. However, the sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigating
circumstances of the case. The appellants were on bail during investigation and
trial and they are on suspension of sentence during the pendency of present
appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that they have misused the terms
of bail during all these years. The appellants have already undergone jail
sentence of 8 days. They have been facing investigation and trial and is also
contesting the present appeal since last about 21 years.
9 . Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit to
reduce the jail sentence already undergone by the appellants and the fine amount
Rs.7,500/- each is imposed.
10. 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 appellants will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.
11. 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
Prar
