Wahid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5255 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Wahid 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. 998 of 2011

                           BETWEEN:-
                           WAHID S/O SAMAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O AWAS
                           COLONY, JEERAPUR, DISTT. RAJGARH (BIAORA)
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           STATION    JEERAPUR,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 appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act) in Special Case No.52/2010. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 323 of IPC with fine of Rs.700/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 23.03.2010 the complainant

Durgashankar was watching cricket match in Jeerapur ground whereas the players started fighting with each other, thereafter he intervened and told them not to fight and match was stopped. Complainant went to his house. Thereafter at about 12 'O' Clock the accused came to complainant's house abused and assaulted him. 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 appellant, 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 the competent authority who issued the caste certificate has not been examined to prove the caste certificate. Hence the caste certificate has not been duly proved. It is further submitted that Court below erred in convicting the appellant inspite of there being material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the Court and in their police statements. On these grounds, 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 dismissal of the appeal.

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

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

8 . Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant was also convicted for offence under Sections 294 and 323 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 294, 323 of IPC. Hence, trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC, therefore, conviction under Sections 294, 323 of IPC is upheld. The appellant remained in custody from 12.04.2010 and 13.04.2010 and at the time of incident he was 22 years old and now he is near about 36 years old. Hence, for offence under Sections 294, 323 of IPC, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the trial Court. His 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