Madhya Pradesh High Court
Premnarayan Brahman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1602 OF 2005
BETWEEN:-
PREMNARAYAN BRAHMAN S/O
PRABHUDAYAL BHATTA, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: TREACTOR DRIVER
& AGRICULTURIST
VILL.BHANPURA,P.S.KUDOLA,DISTT.TIKA
MGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P.
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI ANIL UPADHYAY - PANEL LAWYER
FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 01-02-2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.02.2024
_______________________________________________________________
This appeal having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement on this day, the court passed the following :
JUDGEMENT
Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging judgment dated 22/07/2005
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh
(M.P.) in S.C.No.275/2002 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section
3(1)(XII) SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and with fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that:
"2 vfHk;kstu dFkkud ds vuqlkj ?kVuk dk la{ksi çLrkfor gS fd
vfHk;ksD=h ----------jgus okyh gS ftldk fookg ----------dks gqvk Fkk mlds iwoZ
vfHk;ksD=h vius ekrk firk ds ikl ---------jgrh FkhA ?kVuk dkfrZe ekal lu~
2001 dks crkbZ tkrh gS tc lqcg 8 cts vfHk;ksD=h vius firk ds ?kj jgrs
gq;s [ksr ij cus dqvk ?kj ij eos'kksa dk xkscj Mkyus x;ks Fkh mlks le;
vkjksih igqapk vkSj vfHk;ksD=h dks tehu ij iVd fn;k vkSj cksyk fd
fpYykbZ rks pkdw ekj dj tku ls [kRe dj nsxk fQj vfHk;ksD=h ds diMs
mrkjdj vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk laHkksx dj cykRdkj fd;k cykRdkj ds ckn Hkh
vkjksih us vfHk;ksD=h dks /kedh fn;k fd fjiksVZ dh ;k fdlh dks crk;k rks
tku ls [kRe dj nsxk vkSj vfD;ksdks ds ek¡ cki dks Hkh xko ls Hkxk nsxk A
bl dkj.k vfHk;ksD=h us ?kVuk ds ckjs esa fdlh dks ugha crk;k A tc
fnukad 8&5&2002 dks vfHk;ksD=h dk fookg gqvk vkSj og llqjky xbZ rks
mls fnukad 21&7&2002 dks cPpk iSnk gqvk A bl laca/k esa tc llqjky
okyks us iwNrkN fd;k rc mlus igyh ckj viuh lkl dks ?kVuk ds fo"k;
esa crk;k vkSj ;g Hkh crk;k fd mls xHkZ vkjksih ls Bgjk Fkk vkSj mlh dk
cPpk iSnk gqvk gSA rc vkjksih ds fo#) ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ Fkkuk -----esa
fnukad 6&8&2002 dks fyf[kr esa çn'kZ ihå1 ds vkosnu ds :i esa çLrqr
dks ftlds vk/kkj ij çn'kZ ihå4 dks çFke lwpuk dk;e dh xbZA vfHk;ksD=h
dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k djk;k x;k ftl ij fpfdRld }kjk ijh{k.k djus ds
15 ls 20 fnu iwoZ vfHk;ksD=h dks lkekU; çlo gksuk çekf.kr fd;k x;k ;|
fi cykRdkj ds fo"k; esa dksbZ jk; ugha nh xbZA vkjksih dks vfHkj{kk esa ysdj
mldk Hkks fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k djk;k x;k ftlesa vkjksiks dks laHkksx djus esa
l{ke gksuk ik;k x;k A vfHk;ksD=h ds xqIrkax ds Jko dk LykbZM rS;kj
fd;k x;k A foospuk iw.kZ dj vfHk;qä ds foYn vfHk;ksx i= çLrqr fd;k
x;k tks mikiZ.k i'pkr bl U;k;ky; dks çkIr gqvk A"
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that prosecution
has proved its case by leading cogent evidence & has proved guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt & there are no grounds to interfere with the
same.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the state & have perused/examined
record of trial Court & grounds taken by the appellant/accused in the appeal
memo minutely & carefully.
5. So far as conviction of appellant under Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act is
concerned, perusal of impugned judgment reveals that trial court has acquitted
appellant of charges under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act but
has convicted appellant under Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act.
6. It is evident from deposition of prosecutrix and written report (Ex. P/1)
and overall evidence available on record and impugned judgment, that
prosecution has failed to prove its story/prosecution case as mentioned in FIR
(Ex.P/4)/written report (Ex.P/1). In this Court's considered opinion, learned
trial Court has erred in relying upon same evidence to convict appellant under
Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act.
7. Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act provide as under:
"being in a position to dominate the will of a woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which
she would not have otherwise agreed."
8. From complainant's deposition, it cannot be said that appellant was in a
position to dominate the will of prosecutrix and appellant used that position to
exploit prosecutrix sexually.
9. In the instant case, prosecution has filed caste certificate issued by
Sarpanch (Ex.P/7) but Sarpanch has not been examined and trial Court, only on
the basis of oral testimony of PW-1, PW-8 and appellant's examination under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has held that prosecutrix belonged to SC category.
10. In this Court's opinion, without there being any caste certificate issued by
competent authority, just on the basis of oral testimony and admission/
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it cannot be said that prosecutrix
belonged to SC category. Therefore, also appellant cannot be convicted under
Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act.
11. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras in this Court's opinion,
trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section of 3(1)(XII) of
SC/ST Act. Hence, appellant is acquitted of charge under Section 3(1)(XII) of
SC/ST Act.
12. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sm
