Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malan Singh vs 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. 2698 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
MALAN SINGH S/O DEV CHAND KACHHI AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHARPAHADI, POLICE
STATION AND TAHSIL BERASIA, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KHALID NOOR - ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SCHEDULE CASTE AND
SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed aged the judgment and order dated 16.09.1999
passed by Special Judge (Atrocities)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in
Special Case No. 20/99 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short "Act") and has been sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and
fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to molestation of the prosecutrix was reported to the
Police Station AJK Bhopal where it was registered on Crime No. 1/99 under
Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of 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 learned trial Court ignored serious anomalies,
contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
and also ignored the testimony of defence witnesses and prays for acquittal. In
the alternative limb of prayer he submits that appellant has falsely been
implicated on the ground of animosity. Incident allegedly occurred long back on
08.01.1999. Appellant 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. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
u/s. 3(1)(xi) of the Act is full of contradictions and omissions. There is ample
evidence that prosecutrix was grazing her goat in the field of the appellant for
which he objected. Being aggrieved by the objection on concocted story, the
FIR was lodged. Though, Ram Kishore (PW-2) who is real uncle of the
prosecutrix tried to support the prosecution but the other eye witness Halkuram
(PW-3) does not support the prosecution story as reported to the police
station. The learned trial Court without assigning any reason discarded the
testimony of Balkishan (DW-1) and Mokam Singh (DW-2) who in very clear
terms deposed that the prosecutrix was grazing her goat in the field of the
appellant. On account of the objection raised by the appellant, false report was
lodged. Thus, looking to the evidence in its entirety available on record, learned
trial Court committed serious error of fact and law in recording the conviction
of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. This finding does not find
approval of this Court and is hereby set aside. Acquitting the appellant from
the above charges.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Fine amount if deposited by the
appellant will be refunded back to him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond
and personal bond of stand discharged.
8. 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.
9. C.C. as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
L.R.
