Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghu Singh Rajput vs State Of M.P. on 16 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 661 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. RAGHU SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHIVLAL SONDHYA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, KUNDLA KHURD, PS.
SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALU SINGH S/O PARVAT SINGH SONDHYA
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KUNDLA
KHURD, PS. SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. GANGARAM S/O SHIVLAL SONDHYA RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KUNDLA KHURD, PS.
SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GOPAL SINGH S/O GANGARAM SONDHYA
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, KUNDLA
KHURD, PS. SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. NARAYAN SINGH S/O RAGHU SINGH SONDHYA
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, KUNDLA
KHURD, PS. SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. RANJEET SINGH S/O PARVAT SINGH SONDHYA
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, KUNDLA
KHURD, PS. SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SARDAR SINGH S/O BAPULAL SONDHYA RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KUNDLA KHURD, PS.
SHAMGARH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI P.MITHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THRU. PS. SHAMGARH, THRU. AJK.,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-02-2024
19:00:00
2
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MAYANK MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.05.2008 passed by the
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mandsaur in Special S.T.No. 16/06. By the
impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused for the
offence under Section 447 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, and sentenced to undergo 2 months R.I., one year R.I. each
with fine of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- each with default stipulations
2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the appellants is that
they forcibly entered the agricultural land of the complainant and stopped from
sowing the land. Accordingly, FIR was lodged against the appellants and after
due investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellants before the trial
Court.
3 . The trial Court framed charges against the appellants, which was
denied by the appellants. The trial Court found the appellants guilty for offence
under the aforesaid Sections and convicted them as aforesaid.
4. The appellants 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 appellants 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.
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)(v) of SC/ST Act which is not sustainable in
law.
8 . Hence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and appellants are acquitted
of the charge. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
9. The appellants were also convicted for offence under Section 447 of
IPC by the trial Court. The trial court has not committed any error in holding
the appellant guilty under Section 447 of IPC, therefore, conviction under
Section 447 of IPC is upheld.
10. 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 2005
and appellants are 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 with fine as imposed by the trial Court.
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
RJ
