Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akbar vs The State Of M.P. on 9 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1. AKBAR S/O REHMATALI, AGED 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-AGRICULTURIST, CASTE-
MUSALAN, GRAM -NIVALIYA, POLICE STATION-
AKODIYA, DISTRICT-SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SAGIR KHAN S/O SHAKURKHAN AGED 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-AGRICULTURIST, CASTE-
MUSALAN, GRAM -NIVALIYA,
3. MUSTAKIN S/O AYYUB KHAN, AGED 20 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-AGRICULTURIST, CASTE-
MUSALAN, GRAM -NIVALIYA, POLICE STATION-
AKODIYA,
4. RAIS KHAN S/O HABIB KHAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION-AGRICULTURIST, CASTE-
MUSALAN, GRAM -NIVALIYA, POLICE STATION-
AKODIYA, DISTRICT-SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(MS. SUMANLATA TAMRAKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT [P-2])
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.-ATROCITY
SHAJAPUR, SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Signing time: 28-02-2024
19:32:04
2
JUDGMENT
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.10.2003 passed by Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shajapur in Special Criminal Case
No.63/2002, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section
3(1)(10) of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced them to undergo
six-six months' RI and further convicted under Section 323 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo six-six months' RI with fine of Rs.500-500/- by
each of the appellants, with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 21.11.2001, accused persons abused
the complainant of his caste and caused injuries on him by sticks as well as by
fists and kicks.
3. In trial, trial Court framed charges against the appellants which were denied
by the appellants. After trial, appellants were found guilty and they were
convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above. Appellants have filed this
appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment and submitted that trial Court
erred in law and fact in convicting the appellants under above sections when
there is no evidence available on record to prove the offence. He has further
submitted that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses, therefore, their evidence should not be believed. So
on all these grounds, he prayed that the conviction and sentence passed against
the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted from the charges.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and
prayed for rejection of the appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the
record, it is found that prosecution is not able to adduce the evidence of
competent authority who has issued the caste certificate to the complainant and
without proving caste certificate by competent authority, SC/ST offence is not
proved. Therefore, trial court has committed error in holding the appellant guilty
under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, hence, conviction under Section 3(1)(10)
of SC/ST Act is not correct in eye of law and therefore, same is set aside and
appellants are acquitted from conviction under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.
7. After considering the statements of prosecution witness and evidence on
record, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution
witnesses and evidence so, in the considered opinion of this Court, trial court
has not committed any error in holding the appellants guilty under Sections 323
of IPC, therefore, conviction under Section 323 of IPC is upheld.
8. So far as sentence is concerned, record of the case reveals that incident
took place on 21.11.2001 and since then the appellants are regularly appearing
before the concerned Court on the dates so fixed for their appearance.
Therefore, at this juncture after 23 years, if they are sent to jail then enmity
between the parties will further increase and appellants may become hard
criminal in the company of hard criminals in jail. This is first offence of the
appellants. Appellants remained in jail from 26.12.2001 to 27.12.2001, hence,
the end of the justice would be best served, if their sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone.
9. In view of the aforesaid, present appeal is partly allowed and conviction of
the appellants by the trial court is upheld. So far as sentence awarded by the
trial court is concerned, same is modified to the period already undergone by
the appellants in jail.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for
compliance. The present appeal is partly allowed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
N.R.
