Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Patel vs The State Of M.P. on 15 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 648 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
BABULAL PATEL, S/O CHOTELAL AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE BHAMKI,
P.S. SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHIVAM SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SHAHPURA, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. VINEETA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 09.05.2024
Pronounced on:15.05.2024
T h i s appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
The judgment passed on 2.4.2004 in Sessions Trial No.164/2003
decided by Special Sessions Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, "Act"), Jabalpur, is
under challenge in this criminal appeal. Under the impugned judgment, the
appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused") was convicted of the
offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and was sentenced to one year
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- with additional simple
imprisonment for two months, in case of non-payment of fine and he was
also convicted for the offence of Section 341 IPC for which he was
sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- and for its non-payment to undergo simple
imprisonment of ten days.
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that on
8.12.2002 Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Bhakki, was organized
wherein an issue about rejection of pension applications was raised; when
the query was being answered by the existing Sarpanch Gulab Singh, the
accused gave obscene abuses to him and insulted him by his caste name;
Ex-Sarpanch Kanchedilal objected to it; when Gulab Singh was on his way
to Police Station, Shahpura, to report the matter, he was restrained by
accused and his two sons, namely Ramkumar and Dinesh; they all dragged
the complainant off the motorcycle, threw him on ground, assaulted him
with hands and fists and were giving him life threats; Sarpanch Gulab
Singh reported the matter on the same day upon which FIR was registered
and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed; the trial followed and
under the impugned judgment, accused was convicted as aforesaid and
was acquitted of the charge of Section 323 IPC; rest of the persons
arrayed as co-accused were acquitted of all the charges except for the
offence of Section 341 IPC and were sentenced for it with fine only.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the accused is
falsely implicated in the case; from the statements of prosecution
witnesses it is clear that the accused did not abuse Sarpanch Gulab Singh;
there were contradictions in the statements given before the trial court and
recorded during investigation; compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. was not
ensured; the FIR was ante-timed; there were two parties in the village and
only partisan witnesses corroborated the prosecution case. It was,
therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the accused
should be acquitted.
4. State has opposed the present appeal claiming that no interference is
required in the impugned judgment.
5. Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.
6. The learned trial court has convicted the accused for the offence of
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and for this, reliance has been placed upon the
provisional caste certificate of complainant, marked as Ex.P-2. It was
issued by Tahsildar on 18.12.2002 and contents thereof reveal that it was
issued temporarily while the incident of the present case occurred on
8.12.2002, therefore, it is clear that this provisional caste certificate was
obtained from Tahsildar after the date of incident.
7. The circular issued by General Administration Department of Madhya
Pradesh Government dated 30.6.2001 with No.F.7-32/2000/ आ. ./एक is
very relevant here because it came into existence prior to the issuance of
provisional certificate of Ex.P-2 in this case. This circular makes it clear
that the practice of issuing provisional caste certificate is being stopped
henceforth and only in exceptional circumstances, the provisional caste
certificate would be issued. Those exceptional circumstances have also
been discussed in the circular itself and they are:-
(1) for seeking admission in an education institute.
(2) for applying for a Government job.
(3) for appearing in an interview.
(4) for applying in a Government scheme.
Under only these four exceptional conditions and that too when the
caste certificate is required immediately, the provisional caste certificate
was supposed to be issued; for it an application is duly supported with the
affidavit and the reason of urgency was to be made. The circular further
clarifies that the validity period of this caste certificate would be maximum
six months and all such cases in which provisional caste certificate is
issued shall be enquired into within the prescribed timeframe and if the
applicant is not found to be entitled to the certificate, his provisional caste
certificate would be cancelled.
8. The above discussed circular was in enforcement when the
provisional caste certificate of complainant, marked as Ex.P-2, was issued
by Tahsildar. This caste certificate was issued to prove the caste of
complainant in a criminal case. Obviously, the purpose of issuing this
provisional caste certificate was not covered under the circular of
30.6.2001. Thus, the learned trial court was in error in relying upon the
caste certificate of Ex.P-2 which was issued in flagrant violation of the
existing circular of Madhya Pradesh Government dated 30.6.2001. In the
light of this observation, it is held that the caste of complainant was not
duly proved in the case by any credible document.
9. This court has first to examine whether the conviction of accused
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is sustainable. For this, the prosecution
was supposed to prove that the complainant belonged to scheduled caste
or scheduled tribe category but, as discussed earlier, his caste certificate
has not been filed in evidence by the prosecution.
10. The learned trial court has held the caste of complainant was proved
also on the basis that he was not cross-examined on this fact. It may be
mentioned here that the judgment of Bhagwat Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2006 (1) ANJ (MP) 355 has laid down the course that should
be adopted in a trial under the provisions of the Act and that procedure
says that the prosecution should file a valid certificate of caste/tribe duly
issued by an authorized person and mere oral testimony regarding the
caste/ tribe of the victim is not sufficient. For this, the decision of
Manohar Sawai Rathod v. State of Maharashtra 2007 Cr.L.J.
(NOC 785) 202 is also relevant here, which has laid down that mere
statements of aggrieved person about his caste/tribe is not sufficient and
the prosecution has also to prove this fact by producing documentary
evidence. Thus, even unchallenged testimony on caste is not sufficient to
prove it.
11. The other charge proved against the accused is that he committed
the offence of Section 341 IPC by wrongfully restraining the complainant.
In order to prove this allegation, the prosecution has relied upon the
testimony of complainant Gulab Singh (P.W.1), Kanchedi Patel (P.W.2),
Dabbal Singh (P.W.3) and Harivansh Patel (P.W.4). Two more witnesses
were also examined on this fact and they are Munnalal Patel (P.W.6) and
Rajesh Patel (P.W.7) but both Munnalal and Rajesh have not supported
the prosecution story on this allegation of wrongful restrain, therefore their
testimony deserve no analysis.
12. Harivansh Patel (P.W.4) was examined to prove the act of wrongful
restraint committed by accused but in his examination-in-chief itself in para
4 he has stated that it was son of Ramkumar who caught hold of the
motorcycle of Kanchedi Patel from behind and resultantly Gulab and
Kanchedi both fell on ground along with the motorcycle. According to this
witness, accused Babulal and his two sons then assaulted Gulab and
Kanchedi. Thus, the examination-in-chief of this witness does not make
any assertion that complainant was wrongfully restrained by accused
Babulal.
13. Dabbal Singh (P.W.3) has although claimed that it was accused
Babulal also who caused wrongful restraint to the complainant but his
police statements, marked as Ex. D-3, are silent on this act of accused
Babulal. There he has merely stated that the two sons of Babulal, namely
Dinesh and Ramkumar, caused this wrongful restraint. Thus, this witness
is not reliable for the reason of material improvement made by him during
his court testimony. Similar is the status of the court testimony and the
police statements of complainant Gulab Singh. In his police statement,
marked as Ex.D-1, he has not stated a word against accused Babulal for
causing wrongful restraint to the victim while his court testimony makes a
reference to this issue. Thus, complainant Gulab Singh (P.W.1) and
alleged eyewitness Dabbal Singh (P.W.3) both are not reliable on the
commission of offence of Section 341 IPC by the present accused.
14. Now remains only the testimony of Kanchedi Patel (P.W.2) but on
the basis of lone testimony of this witness upon which other witnesses
have not been found reliable it would not be appropriate to hold the
accused guilty of the offence of Section 341 IPC, particularly in the light
of serious political enmity between the two sides and the prosecution
witnesses have also not been found reliable resulting into acquittal of
accused under the offence of Section 323 IPC.
15. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the accused is acquitted of the
charge of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 341 IPC and this appeal
is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
16. The accused is on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged. The fine
amount, if any, deposited by accused be refunded to him.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be sent to the trial
court for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.05.16 13:16:36 +05'30'
