Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baigadas @ Rajudas 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 DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1746 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
BAIGADAS @ RAJUDAS, S/O SHRI SUNDARDAS PANIKA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, CASTE PANKA, OCCUPATION -
LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE BHALAPURI AT PRESENT BHAI
BAHAN NALA P.S MOTINAL, DISTRICT MANDLA (M.P)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VINEET MISHRA- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S
MOTINALA, DISTRICT MANDLA (M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and finding
dated 28.09.2001 passed by Special Judge SC-ST (PA) Act, in Special Case
No.131/2000 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 354, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) SC-ST
(PA) 1989 and sentenced to six months and fine of Rs.700/- and six months
rigorous imprisonment with the fine with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on 09.05.1998 at about
09:00 p.m. the victim went to answer the call of a nature and the accused went
there and by holding her hand pulled the victim and the victim protested the act.
Thereafter, the matter was narrated to her husband - Kaluram Choudhary, when
Kaluram Choudhary was asked the appellant why he has committed such act
then other co-accused persons reached there and started beating Kaluram
Choudhary. They also abused to Kaluram. The matter was reported to Police
Station Motinala on 10.05.2008, on that basis the FIR (P/1) as Crime No.9/1998
under Section 354, 323, 294 of IPC and under Section 3(1), (xi) of SC- ST
(PA) Act, was registered. After investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.
The trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties passed the impugned
judgment and convicted the appellant as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the
conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) cannot be maintained as no caste certificate
has been proved by the prosecution, the document on which the trial Court has
relied on (Ex.P/2) i.e. issued by the Sarpanch of Village Khalodi, which cannot
be relied upon and he has relied on the judgment of this Court passed in CRA
No.2191/1997 dated 07.01.2020 and CRA No.183/2005 dated 08.09.2016
where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Sarpanch as
Counsellor of Nagar Panchayat has no authority to issue such caste certificate
and if the prosecution is based on such document then, the conviction cannot
be held.
4. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment on Bharat Singh vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (1) MPHT 451 where the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if the appellant/accused has admitted
that the complainant is of a particular caste no conviction can be based on the
evidence that caste came into the scheduled caste.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State failed to indicate any
document i.e. caste certificate has been produced by the prosecution that was
issued by the competent authority SDO (Revenue).
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1), (xi) of SC-
ST (PA) Act, cannot be maintained. Hence, the conviction under this act be
quashed and the appellant is acquitted from that charge.
7. For the rest of the charges the appellant has argued that the jail
sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has argued that if
the conviction is maintained then she has no objection to reduce the jail
sentence.
9. I have considered and perused the record, the victim was of 30 years
of married woman and the appellant is of 30 years of age and both are the same
age group, no previous conviction proved against the appellant hence the jail
sentence 354 IPC is reduced.
10. Learned trial Court himself has imposed only fine for the offence of
323. For offence punishable under Section 354 the jail sentence only six
months, as the case of the year 1998 since then 25 years, have been passed.
Before the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 no minimum jail sentence was
required for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.
11. The appellant has already undergone jail custody i.e. 30.08.1998 to
14.09.1998 & 14 days, hence no purpose is served by resending the appellant
into jail custody. Hence, the sentencing part of the judgment regarding 354 and
323 is modified.
12. For the offence of 354 IPC the jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and for the
offence punishable under Section 323 and fine amount is enhanced to
Rs.1,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within three
months from the receipt of copy of the judgment in default, he shall undergo for
each default three months and one months simple imprisonment The fine
amount already deposited by the appellant before the trial Court shall be
adjusted in the fine amount as above. After the fine amount is deposited,
Rs.5,000/- be paid by the trial Court to complainant Ms. Mayabai, W/o
Kaluram, R/o Village Bhai Bahan Nala, Police Thana, Motinal District Mandla
(M.P).
13. Thus, in short the appellant is acquitted from the charges under
Section 3(1), (xi) of SC- ST (PA) Act, 1989 and for other offence the
conviction is maintained, but the jail sentence is reduced as already discussed.
14. With the above observation the appeal is partly allowed.
15. Let the copy of this judgment along with its record be sent to the trial
court for information and necessary compliance.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
SN
