Rajendra Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 4206 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 13 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                              ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI KESHAR SINTGH
                           RAJPOOT,  AGED     22   YEARS,  OCCUPATION-
                           AGRICULTURE,   R/O    VILLAGE-BADBELI,  P.S.-
                           NARSINGHGARH, DISTRICT-RAJGARH
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI A.K. SARSWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE    STATE    OF     M.P. THROUGH   POLICE
                           NARSINGHGARH,    DISTRICT-RAJGARH   (BIAORA)
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER APPEARING ON
                           BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                           JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Special S.T. No.21/2004 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w Section 294 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R.I. with fine of Rs.500 and under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R.I. with

fine of Rs.300, with default stipulations

2. As per prosecution story, on 18.12.2003 in the morning at 6 O' clock, the complainant- Ramsingh and his son Mahesh were at their farm at village-Dabeli at that time appellant-Rajendra Rajpoot came there and started abusing and beating them on the point of grazing cows and removing from the farm. Accordingly, FIR was lodged against the appellant and after due investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before the trial Court.

3. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants, which was denied by the appellant. The trial Court found the appellant guilty for offence under the aforesaid sections and convicted him as aforesaid.

4 . The appellant challenges the aforesaid conviction on the ground that prosecution failed to establish that complainant's caste falls within the category of Scheduled Caste as no evidence has been produced in this regard that he is the member of Scheduled Caste. It is further submitted that Court below erred in convicting the appellant in spite of there being material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the Court and in their police statements. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellant of the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and prays for rejection of the appeal.

6 . Now question arises whether the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant?

7. After hearing he learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that prosecution has failed to examine the competent authority who issued the certificate of SC/ST for the complainant. So without proving the certificate the trial Court has committed error in holding the

appellants guilty under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act which is not sustainable in law.

8. Hence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

9. The appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 294 and 323 of IPC by the trial Court. The trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC, therefore, conviction under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC is upheld.

1 0 . So far as the sentence is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the incident is of the year 2003 and appellant is facing trial since then, hence, in the opinion of this Court, the jail sentence of the appellants deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, however, the fine amount imposed by the trial court is upheld. Hence, the appellant is sentenced only to pay the fine amount which he has already deposited.

11 . Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.