Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Singh Yadav 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 PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2569 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
DINESH SINGH YADAV S/O TORAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHUKARIYA,
PS.BAIRASIYA,BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEV DATT BHAVE - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, P.S. BAIRASIYA BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH K. PATEL - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2005 passed by learned Special Judge
(Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No.20/2005
convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with
Section 354 of IPC sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of
Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.01.2005 complainant was
returning home from her field at that time appellant caught hold of her and when
she raised hue and cry the appellant took to heels, therefore, the complainant
lodged aforesaid offences against the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that caste certificate of
complainant was issued by an incompetent authority and there was no proof of
complainant belonging to the said caste and, therefore, no offence under
Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out.
4. After perusal of record, it reveals that caste certificate is Exhibit P/3,
which has been issued by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Khukariya (M.P.). It is
admitted by learned Panel Lawyer for the State that Sarpanch Gram Panchayat,
Khukariya (M.P.). was never authorised to issue a caste certificate and,
therefore, in absence of the caste being not proved beyond reasonable doubt,
the conviction cannot be upheld under the provisions of the Prevention of
Atrocities Act. Unless caste is proved and certificate is issued by the competent
authority, the conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Prevention
of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Since, Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat, Khukariya (M.P.). was admittedly not a competent authority to issue
caste certificate and no competent caste certificate is made available on record.
5. In Chalaniya Dheemar versus State of Madhya Pradesh ILR
2012 MP 189, it is held that no certificate of any competent authority to that
effect was produced or proved before the Court and, therefore, conviction
cannot be maintained under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act in
absence of legal evidence in the Court.
6. In Pillu Alias Pyarelal versus State of Madhya Pradesh ILR
2012 MP 1309, it is held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of victim
b y any cogent and reliable document issued by the competent authority then
mere oral deposition of witness would not deem to be proved.
7. After perusal of record, it also appears that there is no other evidence
available on record. When these facts are taken into consideration, then it is
evident that the learned trial court erred in holding that under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 are proved. The impugned judgment having failed to take into
consideration these vital aspects and appreciation of law, therefore, conviction
and sentence passed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
8. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant under
Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the
appellant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the appellant,
however, he challenged the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that he
is the first offender and counsel assures that he will not involve in such criminal
activities in future. It is further submitted that this case is pending since 2005
and at that time there was no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354
of IPC but the said Section was amended from 03.02.2013 wherein one year of
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 354 of IPC. Appellant
was in custody for two days. He further submitted that having regard to all
circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in
view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court
since 2005 and this appeal is pending since 2005, therefore, he prayed that his
jail sentence be reduced suitably.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellant,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding
of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
12. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and
period of jail sentence already undergone by him which is about 02 days and
this appeal is pending since 2005 and the appellant is facing trial since 2005, I
am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant
is sentenced for the period already undergone by him with some enhancement in
the fine amount.
13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.4,000/- under Section 354 of IPC, which shall
be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount within the
stipulated period, the appellant shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellant is on bail.
His bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier shall
be adjusted.
14. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
