Lal Sahu vs The State Of M.P.A
2024 Latest Caselaw 21247 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lal Sahu vs The State Of M.P.A on 6 August, 2024

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                        1                          CRA-627-2001
     IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                               BEFORE
               HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                          ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 627 of 2001
                                    LAL SAHU
                                      Versus
                                THE STATE OF M.P.A
Appearance:
     Shri Akash Koshal - Advocate for the appellant.
     Shri Dilip Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the State.

     Reserved on      : 24.07.2024
     Pronounced on: 06.08.2024

                                       JUDGMENT

In this criminal appeal, the judgment delivered on 30.3.2001 by Special Judge (Atrocities), Panna, in Special Case No.83/2000 has been challenged whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused") was convicted of the offence of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act") and Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,500/- with default clause under each head.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are that on 29.12.1998 at around 8:00 a.m. the prosecutrix, aged 13 years, had gone out along with her 7-8 years old younger brother; after answering the nature's call, she was coming back home when near the field of Rajaram Brahman accused came from the front and caught hold of her hand; both the prosecutrix and her 2 CRA-627-2001 younger brother screamed upon which their relatives arrived and on seeing them, the accused fled away; prosecutrix narrated the incident to them and the FIR was lodged in a police station, which was 45 kilometers away; the investigation was held; the prosecutrix was medically examined and after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. In the trial that followed, the impugned judgment was delivered, convicting and sentencing the accused as detailed above.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the prosecution had evidently failed to prove its case through evidence; the statements of prosecution witnesses were unreliable; only interested witnesses were examined and there was no corroboration from any independent witness; the relevant witnesses were not examined; there was no material to record the finding that the criminal force was used to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix; there were inimical relations between the father of prosecutrix and the accused; the injury found on the person of prosecutrix could have been the result of fall as admitted by Dr. Sharad; it was, therefore, claimed that the findings were illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and accordingly the accused should have been acquitted in the matter. Therefore, a request has been made to allow the appeal.

4. State has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the judgment of trial court is based upon reasoned assessment of evidence, therefore appeal should be dismissed.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the record of the trial court has been perused.

6. The accused was convicted in this case of the charge of Section 3(1)(xi) 3 CRA-627-2001 of the Act. By going through the record of trial court, it can be observed that no reliable testimony was produced by the prosecution to establish that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste category. The only document filed in this context was a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of gram panchayat certifying that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste but Sarpanch was never assigned with an authority to issue a caste certificate therefore this caste certificate, marked as Ex.P-5, is of no evidentiary value for having been issued by an unauthorised person.

7. The trial court was impressed by the fact that the accused had admitted in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste category and besides answer to that question, there is no other evidence available on record which weighed in favour of the fact that prosecutrix belonged to the scheduled caste.

8. Now, this court has to first examine whether the conviction of accused under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is sustainable.

9. The learned trial court held the caste of prosecutrix proved on the basis of an answer given by accused to a question during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste. It may be mentioned here that the judgment of Bhagwat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006 (1) ANJ (MP) 355 has laid down the course that should be adopted in a trial under the provisions of the Act and that procedure says that the prosecution should file a valid certificate of caste/tribe duly issued by an authorized person and mere oral testimony regarding the caste/ tribe of the victim is not sufficient. For this, the decision of Manohar Sawai Rathod v. State of Maharashtra 2007 Cr.L.J. (NOC 785) 4 CRA-627-2001 202 is also relevant here, which has laid down that mere statements of aggrieved person about his caste/tribe is not sufficient and the prosecution has also to prove this fact by producing documentary evidence.

10. The Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 2352 has held that the answers given by the accused to the questions put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not per se evidence because firstly, they are not on oath, and secondly, they are not subjected to cross-examination and they are nevertheless subject to consideration by the court to the limited extent of drawing an adverse inference against such accused for any false answers given voluntarily and to provide an additional/missing link in the chain of circumstances.

11. On the basis of foregoing discussion and finding that the accused did not have any occasion to know the ancestry of the victim in context of her caste, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste category. Consequently, the conviction of accused under the offence of Section 3(1)

(xi) of the Act is held to be non-sustainable and he is, therefore, acquitted of the charge.

12. This court has to examine whether the offence of Section 354 IPC has been established against the accused. To prove this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of mother (P.W.1) of the prosecutrix, prosecutrix (P.W.3) herself, her brother (P.W.4), her relative (P.W.5), her younger brother (P.W.6), who was the eyewitness in this case, the seizure witness Gopendra Chandra Choubey (P.W.2), Medical Officer Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (P.W.8), who found an injury on the person of victim, and Investigating 5 CRA-627-2001 Officer B. P. Ahirwar (P.W.7) and H. S. Chhari (P.W.9). From the analysis of testimony of these witnesses, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used criminal force upon the prosecutrix; caught hold of her hand resulting into injury on account of her broken bangles; dragged her towards the well; was resisted by the younger brother of prosecutrix and incident witnessed by persons rushing to the spot on hearing the screams and then accused fled away from the spot. These facts cumulatively prove the guilt of accused and have been substantially proved by the testimony of relevant witnesses.

13. Story of prosecution has been challenged on the ground that cross- examination of prosecutrix revealed that there were two women present on the well but those women were not named as witnesses nor were they examined by the prosecution. This court is of the opinion that it would have been necessary to trace the identity of those women who were of some other locality only if the other witnesses were not available. Here, we have substantial number of witnesses present, arriving on the spot and testifying to the incident. In this light, there was no reason to collect additional evidence.

14. The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses reveal that though a plea was raised in defence that there was an enmity between the two sides but none of the prosecution witnesses accepted this story, nor there is any defence evidence which would make this theory probable. Therefore, false implication on account of any enmity is completely out of canvas in this entire incident.

15. On the basis of foregoing discussion, it is established that the conviction of accused for the offence of Section 354 IPC deserves no 6 CRA-627-2001 interference as it is based upon corroborative and reliable testimony. Therefore, the conviction of accused under Section 354 IPC is upheld.

16. A prayer has been made on behalf of accused to sympathetically consider the aspect of punishment. Admittedly, accused was not attributed to any criminal antecedents and at the time of incident he was 23 years old. In this long passage of time of 24 years since the date of incident, he must have been settled in life by now. Even the prosecutrix was married when she appeared in the witness-box. No purpose would be served in sentencing the accused to imprisonment at this stage. He has already suffered a custody of more than 20 days in this case, therefore this revision is allowed on the question of sentence and the sentence of one year imprisonment awarded by the court below is modified to the period already undergone by him in custody and the fine amount is raised to Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs.9,000/- shall be payable to the prosecutrix as compensation. In case he fails to pay in the trial court this enhanced fine amount within 45 days from this day of judgment, he shall undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months.

17. The fine amount deposited by the accused, in compliance of the direction of the court below, shall be adjusted against the fine amount enhanced by this court.

18. The accused is already on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.

19. A copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) 7 CRA-627-2001 JUDGE ps

Date: 2024.08.07 12:59:07 +05'30'