Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Lodhi 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1334 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
ARJUN LODHI, SON OF HAJARILAL LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION CULTIVATION, R/O
VILLAGE KOSAMGHAT, PS MAHARAJPUR, DISTRICT
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AKHILENDRA SINGH- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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 26.04.1999
passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mandla, in
Special Case No. 19/1998 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3
months and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short "Act") and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. 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 Maharajpur, District Mandla where FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered
on Crime No. 199/97 under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) 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 no caste certificate has been produced to prove the caste
of prosecutrix Shyamkali (PW-1) by the prosecution. There are serious
anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses and prays for acquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer
he submits that the incident took place in the year 1997 i.e. near about 26 years
back. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, taking
lenient view jail sentence may be suitably 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 perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix Shyamkali (PW-1), it is
apparent that even though she has mentioned her belonging to Pradhan caste
but nothing is on record to prove that Pradhan belongs to scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe. No caste certificate has been brought on record.
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 is not proved
which is mandatory for proving offences under the Act, which vitiates the
conviction recorded under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and therefore, it is set
aside and appellant is acquitted of the above charges.
9. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
u/s. 354 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free
from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of prosecutrix
Shyamkali (PW-1) stands duly corroborated with the FIR (Ex. P/2) 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. Incident took place for more than 26 years back.
Appellant faced trial and appeal during the long period of time. No criminal
antecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, the period of jail sentence
is set aside by enhancing the fine amount for the offence under Section 354 of
the IPC.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The fine of Rs.2000/- is
imposed for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The appellant will have
to deposit this 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
L.R. signed by
Digitally
LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2023.12.29
16:29:06 +05'30'
