Mohd.Sharif And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5256 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohd.Sharif And Anr. 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. 277 of 2012

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    MOHD.SHARIF S/O MOHD.ISHAQ, AGED ABOUT 45
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: FABRICATION WORK
                                 MOHAN TALKIES ROAD, MHOW, DISTT. INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SAMEER S/O MOHD. SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 22
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: FABRICATION WORK
                                 MOHAN TALKIES ROAD, MHOW DISTRICT
                                 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI LS.CHANDIRAMANI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           STATION AJK, INDORE (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 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities, Act) Indore in Special Case No.41/2009. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 3(1)(5), 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo 6-6 months R.I. each

on two counts with fine of Rs.250/- each for both the offences and under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of IPC sentenced to undergo 1 month, 3 months and 3 months R.I. respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 02.03.2009 at 10:00 A.M. at the public tap situated in front of the house of the complainant, when her sister was filling water from the tap, the appellants came there and gave her foul abuses and threw away her utensils and said that they would not be allowed to fill water from that tap as they being harijan. When complainant told them not to give foul abuses, appellant no.2 assaulted complainant with iron pipe due to which he received injuries on his nose and left hand. 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 SDM/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 appellants inspite of there being material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded before the Court and in their police statements. O n 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 SDM/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)(5), 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act which is not sustainable in law.

8 . Hence, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 3(1)(5), 3(1) (10) 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 294, 506 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, 506 and 323 of IPC. Hence, trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellants guilty under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of IPC, therefore, conviction under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of IPC is upheld. The appellants remained in custody from 17.03.2012 to 18.03.2012 and at the time of incident they were 45 and 22 years old and now they are near about 60 and 37 years old. Hence, for offence under Sections 294, 506 and 323 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