Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahid 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. 396 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
SHAHID S/O IBRAHIM, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O DAHI,
DISTRICT-DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI YASHPAL RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.-KUKSHI, DISTRICT-
DHAR (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
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 07.03.2005 passed by Special Judge,
Dhar, District-Dhar in Special Criminal Case No.31/2004, whereby trial Court
has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. with fine
of Rs.1000/-, with default clause.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 14.01.2004, prosecutrix went to floor-
mil situated at Surani mohalla, village-Dahi, District-Dhar for grinding millet and
when she was returning her home, accused came to her and outraged her
modesty and then, she returned to floor-mil and told whole story to Bhil Singh
and Bapu Singh (Jeth of prosecutrix) thereafter, report was lodged.
3. In trial, trial Court framed charges against the appellant which were denied
by the appellant. After trial, appellant was found guilty and he was convicted
and sentenced as indicated herein above.
4. The appellant challenges the aforesaid conviction on the ground that the
trial Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under
Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that prosecution has
failed to examine the competent authority who issued the certificate of SC/ST
for the complainant. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned
judgment and acquittal of the appellant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and
prayed for rejection of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Now question arises whether the trial court has committed error in
convicting the appellant?
8. 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)(11) of SC/ST Act. Hence, conviction of the appellant under
Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act is not correct in the eye of law.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)
(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable in law and is
accordingly, set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges under
Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
10. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
N.R.
