Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Prasad And Ors. 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. 761 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
1. JAGDISH PRASAD S/O BHURELAL
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O
CHAMPANER, DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MAHESH PRASHAD S/O MITTHU LAL CHOUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R / O CHAMPANER,
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER)
This 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 06.03.1999, whereby the present appellants have been convicted for
offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with fine Rs.200/- each,
R.I. for six months with fine Rs.200/- each and R.I. for six months with fine
Rs.500/- each respectively, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the incident occurred on
20.11.1995 at around 8 to 9 pm in the night. The complainant went to fetch
water from hand pump in the village. The accused appellant No.1 was the
Sarpanch and he called appellant No.2 and stopped the complainant from
fetching water from hand pump. They are also stated to have pushed the
complainant and hurled caste based abuses. The Court has awarded minimum
sentence of six months under the said offences.
3. Upon perusal of the deposition of witnesses, specially deposition of
complainant (PW/3) and Dayaram (PW/4), it appears that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the case against the present appellants beyond reasonable
doubt. Though, Dayaram (PW-4) has been disbelieved by the trial Court, but
looking to the deposition of complainant (PW-3) the findings recorded by the
trial Court appeared to be impeccable and well reasoned which does not
warrant any interference from this Court in appellate jurisdiction.
4 . However, since this case involves offences under Special Act, i.e.
under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the caste status of the complainant
has to be conclusively proved. 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 , wherein it has been held that even admission of
accused as to caste status of complainant would not relieve the prosecution
from its obligation to prove caste status.
5. In the present case, one caste certificate is on record, but it was not
proved by the prosecution. This certificate is part of challan and is said to be
issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Sultanpur, District Raisen. It does not bear any
serial number or dispatch number. It is hand written on a plain piece of paper.
The person issuing the certificate was not produced in witness box to prove the
certificate, nor any other prosecution witness has proved the certificate. Since it
is not issued on the prescribed proforma for caste certificate and does not bear
any number on it, no value can be attached to this certificate.
6. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 3(1)(v)
and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside. Their conviction under Section 323 of the
I.P.C. is upheld.
7. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigating
circumstances of the case. The appellants were 26 and 40 years of age at the
time of incident and no further criminal record has been shown against the
appellants. 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. They have been facing investigation and trial and are also contesting
the present appeal since last about 24 years.
8 . Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit to
reduce the sentence and the sentence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. is
modified to fine Rs.1000/- each and further amount of Rs.5000/- to be paid to
complainant in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
9. Let the fine and compensation 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.
10. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order for
information and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellants be discharged.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
rj
