Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2385 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
MOHANLAL S/O AMRAJI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILL.
KHEDIMAL, PS JAWAR, DIST. KHANDWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE P.S.
JAWAR DIST. KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant havs challenged the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Khandwa, in Special Case No. 47/2006 whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and u/S 3(1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,1989 and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and fine of
Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Ms. Seem Sahu, Advocate
who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of
the appellants as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that
on 21.06.2006 at about 7:00 P.M., the accused person/appellant tried to outrage
her modesty who belongs to SC/ST caste.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the offence
u/S 3(1) (xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned intention of
appellant to insult the complainant on the basis of caste is not proved in this
case. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a liberal view on the point
of sentence be taken by the Court, so she prayed that the sentence be reduced
to period already undergone.
5 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant under
Sections 354 of Indian Penal Code and u/S 3 (1) (xi ) of SC/ST ( Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he said that Court is at liberty to consider the case on
the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of
record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Jawar District Khandwa on
22.04.2006 against the appellant which was registered as Crime No.123/2006
under Sections 354 and 323 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was
filed.
7 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is found that caste
certificate of prosecutrix was issued by the Sarpanch Shivram Pawar and
Shivram was examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW-4 but since the
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not competent authority to issue caste
certificate, therefore Ex.P/3 in respect of it the submission of Shivram (PW-4)
are not believable. Under these circumstances, it is not proved that prosecutrix
belongs to scheduled tribes ,therefore, conviction u/S 3 (1) (xi ) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cannot be sustained. Resultantly, accused is
acquitted from u/S 3 (1) (xi ) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
8 . In Criminal Appeal No. 406/1998 (Shankarlal Vs. State of MP)
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2013 held that it is
necessary to prove that the accused has insulted the complainant with intent to
humiliate him/her because of he being a member of scheduled caste.
9. In Chalaniya Dheemar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012 MP
189 and Pillu Alias Pyarelal Vs 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.
10. So far as the conviction u/S 354 is concerned, prosecutrix (PW-1) has
supported the version of prosecution and stated that the appellant/accused used
criminal force with intention to outraged her modesty then witnesses Ballu (PW-
2) has also supported the case of prosecutrix, Fhoolchand (PW-7), Sobharam
(PW-8) are in form of corroborative evidence. The case of prosecution is
further supported by FIR and medical evidence and statement of Dr. Nishikant
Kochkar (PW-3), prosecutrix and other witnesses remained intact in their cross
examination, therefore, the conviction u/S 354 is affirmed/maintained.
11. So far as the sentence in aforesaid offence is concerned, the appellant
remained in custody for 1 day during investigation/trial offence is of the year
2006 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. He has no criminal
antecedent. He is the first offender. He was the 55 years of age at the time of
commission of crime. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period already undergone by him (1 day), sentence of fine is increased by
Rs.500/- that will be adjusted from the fine deposited u/S 3 (1) (xi ) of SC/ST (
Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
1 2 . The appellant is on bail, their personal bond and bail bond be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
13. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
