Smt. Ramaiya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22748 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Ramaiya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                              ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2160 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SMT. RAMAIYA BAI W/O UMA PRASAD MISHRA,
                                 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O VILL. GANNAGUDHA
                                 P.S. BAJAG DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SANJU MISHRA S/O UMA PRASAD MISHRA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILL. GANNAGUDHA P.S.
                                 BAJAG DISTT. DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI VINEET MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. A.J.K.
                           DINDORI DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            JUDGEMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge (Attorcities), District Mandla in Special Case No.26/05 on 15.10.2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 294 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one month R.I. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and

fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to further undergo R.I. for 11/2 months.

2 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the appellant Ramaiya Bai remained in custody from 13.10.2004 to 18.10.2004. However, appellant Sanju Mishra did not remain in custody for a single day. He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.

3 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 294 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of

record, it appears that the FIR was lodged by Sukhram at Police Station Ajak, District Dindori against the appellants on 10.10.2004 registered as Crime No.9/2004 under Sections 341, 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined 07 witnesses in support of their case. PW-5 Sukhram Singh narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. The caste certificate of Sukhram Singh was issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gannagudha. However, the Sarpanch was not the competent authority to issue the caste certificate and in absence of any documentary evidence regarding the caste of the complainant and only on the basis of the oral statement of the witnesses, it cannot be accepted that the complainant is the member of SC/ST and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge in respect of charges under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code are based

on due appreciation of evidence and I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings and conviction under Section 294 of IPC and consequently, the judgment of conviction and conviction under Section 294 of IPC is hereby upheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2004, the appellant Ramaiya Bai remained in jail from 13.10.2004 to 18.10.2004 and the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine of Rs.2500-2500/- is imposed upon the appellants. The appellants shall deposit the fine amount within a period of two months from today. The fine amount be paid to the victims by the trial Court as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE Priya.P