Mehboob And 3 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5254 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mehboob And 3 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                             ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1284 of 2011

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    MEHBOOB AND 3 ORS. S/O HAMID KHAN, AGED
                                 ABOUT       35     YEARS, VILL.KOTARIKALA
                                 P.S.KURAWAR    DISTT.RAJGARH     (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    YUSUF S/O HAMID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                                 VILLAGE    KOTARIKALA,    P.S. KURAWAR,
                                 RAJGARTH(BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    REHAMAT S/O HAMID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30
                                 YEARS, VILLAGE KOTARIKALA, P.S. KURAWAR,
                                 RAJGARTH (BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    RAUF S/O HAMID KHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                                 VILLAGE    KOTARIKALA,   P.S.  KURAWAR,
                                 RAJGARTH(BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA GANGARE- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. P.S.
                           KURAWAR DISTT. RAJGARH (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 appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2011 passed by the

learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Rajgarh in Special Case No.56/2011. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 506, 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I., 1 Year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- on each count with default stipulations.

2 . The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.02.2011 the appellants/accused abused the complainant calling her by caste name and also threatened for life. 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 the competent authority who issued the caste certificate has not been examined. Hence, the caste certificate has not been duly proved. It is further submitted that Court below erred in convicting the appellants inspite 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 appellants.

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

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

7. After hearing the 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 caste certificate for the complainant. So without proving the caste certificate, the trial Court has committed error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act which is not sustainable in law.

8 . Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and appellants are acquitted of the charge. The appellants were also convicted for offence under Sections 506, 294 of IPC by the trial Court.

9 . Considering the evidence of the prosecution there is no contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses with regard to Sections 506, 294 of IPC. Hence, trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellants guilty under Sections 506, 294 of IPC, therefore, conviction under Sections 506, 294 of IPC is upheld. The appellants remained in custody from 28.03.2011 to 29.03.2011 and at the time of incident they were 35, 42, 30 and 33 years old and now they are near about 48, 55, 43 and 46 years old. Hence, for offence under Sections 506, 294 of IPC, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment, appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them with fine as imposed by the trial Court. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

1 0 . Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated

above. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.

C.C. as per rules.

(HIRDESH)

JUDGE RJ