Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandu Baba vs The State Of M.P. on 29 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1820 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
NANDU BABA @ NANDKISHORE, SON OF DHANIRAM
KOSTHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION
RETAILER OF CLOTH, R/O KOSTHA MAUHALLA,
SHAHEED UDAY CHAND WARD, P.S. TAHSIL & DISTT.
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NITESH KUMAR DIWAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/10/2003
passed by Special Judge (under the SC/ST Act), Mandla in Special Case No.
102/2004, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 6
months and fine of Rs. 1000/- respectively with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to offence of house trespass and molestation was
reported to the Police Station Mandla, Distt. Mandla, where F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) was
registered on Crime No.510/2002 under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC and
3(1)(xi) of the Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction and
sentence submits that the caste certificate issued by the authorised officer has
not been produced by the prosecution in the case. In absence of proof of caste
of the certification conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is bad in law
and appellant deserves acquittal from the above charges. He further submits that
learned trial Court has ignored serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions
present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, therefore, prays for acquittal
from other charges also. In the alternative limb of prayer he submits that during
trial appellant has remained in custody for one day. Incident took place in te
year 2002 near about 21 years back. He has no criminal antecedents, therefore,
taking lenient view jail sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays
for dismissal of this appeal stating that it is devoid of merits.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that caste certificate (Ex.P/3)
produced in this case is issued by Sarpanch, who was at no time authorised to
issue this certificate. Caste certificate has not been proved by the Sarpanch.
7. In Chalaniya Dheemar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012
MP 189 and Pillu Alias Pyarelal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR
2012 MP 1309, it has been specifically held by coordinate Bench of this Court
that if caste of victim is not proved by cogent and reliable document issued by
the competent authority, then mere oral deposition of witness would not be
sufficient to prove the caste certificate.
8. In such circumstances, when the caste of the prosecutrix has not been
proved it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act has
been proved by the prosecution. Thus, learned trial committed serious error of
fact and law in recording the conviction of appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Act which is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the above
charges.
9. The evidence adduced in support of the offence u/s. 354 of the IPC is
found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material
infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of prosecutrix (PW/2) stands duly
corroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by her, therefore,
finding of conviction cannot be interfered and is hereby affirmed.
10. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant
appears to be reasonable. The incident took place more than 21 years back.
The appellant faced trial and appeal during this long period of time. The
appellant has remained in custody for 1 day i.e. from 10/11/2002 to
11/11/2002. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore,
the period of jail sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount for the offence under Section 354 of
the IPC.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The fine amount is enhanced
from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The
appellant will have to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within a period of
two months from the date of judgment passed by this Court, before the
concerned trial Court failing which the appellant will have to undergo R.I. for
one month. Since he has been acquitted for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi)
of the Act, therefore, the fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant for this
offence, will be refunded back to him by learned trial Court. The appellant is on
bail. His bail bond and personal bond stand discharged.
12. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment
of this Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
13. C.C. as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
m/-
