Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahalad And Anr. vs The State Of M.P. on 6 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 50 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. PRAHALAD AND ANR., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
(MADHYA PRADESH) R/O VILLAGE
MAGARMUHA, P.S. SHAHHPURA, DISTRICT
JABALPUR, M.P.
2. GOVERDHAN S/O JOR SINGH VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE MAGARMUHA
PS SHAHPURA DISTT JABALPUR MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI - AMICUS CURIAE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. HEMLATA KSHATRIYA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction dated 03.01.2004 passed by learned Special Judge
(Atrocities) Sagar in Special Case No.254/2001 convicting the appellant No.1
for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 354/34 of IPC
sentencing him to undergo R.I for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and appellant
No.2 for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of t h e Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 354 of IPC
sentencing him to undergo R.I for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.05.2001 complainant
lodged the report at Police station AJAK Sagar, therefore, on the basis of
complaint lodged by the complainant, Police registered the case against the
appellants under aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that caste certificate of
complainant was issued by an incompetent authority and there was no proof of
complainant belonging to the said caste and, therefore, no offence under
Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out.
4. After perusal of record, it reveals that caste certificate is Exhibit P/5.
It is admitted by learned Panel Lawyer for the State that Sarpanch of Gram
Berkheri, District Sagar (M.P.). was never authorised to issue a caste certificate
and, therefore, in absence of the caste being not proved beyond reasonable
doubt, the conviction cannot be upheld under the provisions of the Prevention
of Atrocities Act. Unless caste is proved and certificate is issued by the
competent authority, the conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the
Prevention of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Since,
Sarpach of Gram Panchayat, Berkheri, District Sagar (M.P.). was admittedly
not a competent authority to issue caste certificate and no competent caste
certificate is made available on record.
5. In Chalaniya Dheemar versus State of Madhya Pradesh ILR
2012 MP 189, it is held that no certificate of any competent authority to that
effect was produced or proved before the Court and, therefore, conviction
cannot be maintained under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act in
absence of legal evidence in the Court.
6. In Pillu Alias Pyarelal versus State of Madhya Pradesh ILR
2012 MP 1309, it is held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of victim
b y any cogent and reliable document issued by the competent authority then
mere oral deposition of witness would not deem to be proved.
7. After perusal of record, it also appears that there is no other evidence
available on record. When these facts are taken into consideration, then it is
evident that the learned trial court erred in holding that under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 are proved. The impugned judgment having failed to take into
consideration these vital aspects and appreciation of law, therefore, conviction
and sentence passed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
8. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant under
Section 354 of the IPC is concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the
appellant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the appellant,
however, he challenged the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that he
is the first offender and counsel assures that he will not involve in such criminal
activities in future. It is further submitted that this case is pending since 2004
and at that time there was no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354
of IPC but the said Section was amended from 03.02.2013 wherein one year of
minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 354 of IPC. Appellant
No.1 was in custody for five days and appellant No.2 was in custody for two
days. He further submitted that having regard to all circumstances which
resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the
appellants were facing the trial before the concerned Court since 2001 and this
appeal is pending since 2004, therefore, he prayed that his jail sentence be
reduced suitably.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that after
appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below have
rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no
grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants,
hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some
force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. Though the appellants have not made any attempt to assail the finding
of their conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the
findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused
the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case
is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on merits. From the
perusal of the record, it reveals that the findings of the trial Court is based upon
proper appreciation of oral and document evidence, therefore, upheld the
findings of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC recorded by the trial Court.
12. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants
and period of jail sentence already undergone by them and this appeal is
pending since 2004 and the appellants are facing trial since 2001, I am of the
considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants are
sentenced for the period already undergone by them with some enhancement in
the fine amount.
13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
i s hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine is
enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.4,000/- under Section 354 of IPC, which shall be
deposited within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount within the
stipulated period, the appellant shall suffer 1 month R.I. Appellants are on bail.
Their bail bonds stand discharged. Amount of fine, if any, deposited earlier
shall be adjusted.
14. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal appeal stands
partly allowed and disposed of.
15. Before parting, I must put on record my unreserved appreciation
for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae. The
High Court Legal Services Authority shall remit the fees to the learned
counsel who has assisted this Court.
Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the court below for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
