Madhya Pradesh High Court
Girdhari Kachi 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 441 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
GIRDHARI KACHI S/O BABUA KACHI, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, R/O VILL. SINGHPUR KACHIYANA TOLA P.S.
SINGHPUR DISTT. SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. AJK SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated
21.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Shahdol, in Session Trial No. 65/2014, whereby,
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 294 of IPC,
Section 323 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and
fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 506-II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI
for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and fine of
Rs. 2000/-with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to offence of threatening to kill and calling in the
name of caste was reported to the Police Station Singhpur District Shahdol on
28.07.2014 which was registered on Crime No. 137/2014 under Sections 452,
323, 294, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. The investigation
was set in motion and on its completion, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial
Court after hearing the concerned parties and on due appreciation of the
evidence on record vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentenced
submits that the learned trial Court ignored serious anomalies, contradictions
and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. He has committed
serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of guilt. Alternative limb
of the argument is that appellant has remained in jail from 30.07.2014 to
04.08.2014 i.e. 5 days. Incident occurred for more than 9 years back. He has
no criminal antecedents. In view of this, a lenient view may be taken as regards
to the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that learned trial Court has passed
the judgment on due appreciation on evidence available on record, therefore,
findings of conviction and sentence passed thereon needs no interferes is liable
to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
u/s. 323 and 506-II of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The
same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of
prosecutrix Ranu Kol (PW-1) stands duly corroborated with first information
report (Ex. P/1) and medical examination report (Ex. P-5) therefore, it cannot be
inferred that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording
conviction for offence under Section 323 and 506-II of IPC against the
appellant. Therefore, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is
hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the conviction under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Section
294 of IPC, it is to be noted that incident took place on 28.07.2014 at that time
of unamended provision Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, was in force where it was
mentioned that who are not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled
caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public view shall be liable for the
offence under this provision.
8. In the case in hand, from perusal of the FIR (Ex. P/1) which is lodged by
the complainant Ranu Kol (PW-1), it is clear that incident took place inside the
house of the complainant, where caste related filthy abuses were allegedly
hurled. This version has been reiterated by Ranu Kol (PW-1) in her court
statement. In her cross-examination paragraph 3, she has admitted that her
husband instigated her to lodge the FIR against the appellant Girdhari Kachi to
settle a score as the appellant has already lodged an FIR against her husband.
The above statement amply proves that FIR with caste related aspersions has
been lodged due to the previous animosity and to settle the score with the
appellant. As stated herein above, the incident took place inside the house of the
complainant which is not place in public view. Therefore, conviction recorded
by the learned trial Court against the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
read with 294 of IPC is not based on due appreciation of evidence on record
and it is also against above mentioned provision of SC/ST Act. The conviction
under above Section does not withstand the judicial scrutiny, hence, it is set
aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST Act and Section 294 of IPC.
9. Conviction of the appellant under Section 323 and 506-II of IPC has been
affirmed as found proved. Looking to the fact that incident took place near
about 9 years back. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellant. He
remained in custody for 5 days, therefore, a lenient view may be taken as
regards to the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted
from the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and Section 294 of IPC
and sentence with regard to the offence under Section 323 and 506-II is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. Bail
bonds and personal bonds of the appellant are hereby discharged
11. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment
be forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and necessary
action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
L.R.
