Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampal @ Munnalla vs The State Of M.P. on 22 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 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1559 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
RAMLAL @ MUNNALAL, S/O RAM NIHOR BADAI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GRAM KHORVA KHAS, THANA
KAMARJI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION, SC & ST, SIDHI (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. VINEETA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 15.05.2024
Pronounced on: 22.05.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment
delivered by Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short, "Act"), Sidhi, on 30.8.2003 in
Special Case No.13/2003 whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as
"accused") was convicted for the offence of Section 323 IPC and was
sentenced to fine of Rs.200/- with a default clause of one month simple
imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. The accused was also convicted
for the offence of Section 354 IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act for
which he was sentenced only for the offence of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act to
six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- with a default clause to
undergo 15 days simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.
2. Facts of the case may be summed up as, on 27.1.2003 prosecutrix was on
her way to home at around 4:30 p.m. from the shop of flour grinding of Raviraj
Singh; in the middle of the agriculture field of Ramcharitra, the accused caught
hold of her wrist and used criminal force upon her; he forcibly threw her on the
ground and tried to outrage her modesty; in this act, her bangle was broken; the
accused was threatening with the Tangi claiming that he would kill the
prosecutrix if she screamed; still the prosecutrix made a call for rescue upon
which Basantlal, Daddi Saket and Buddhsen rushed to the spot; upon seeing
them, the accused gave abuses to the prosecutrix, insulted her by her caste
name and fled away; the report was made to the police upon which crime was
registered and investigation was held. In the trial, that followed after the filing of
charge-sheet, the impugned judgment was passed and the accused was
convicted as well as sentenced as aforesaid.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the finding and sentence
recorded by the court below are erroneous on law and facts; there was no
evidence to prove that the prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste category;
the conviction was based solely upon her testimony; no articles like pieces of
bangles were recovered from the alleged scene of crime; the spot map was also
not proved; the statements of prosecution witnesses suffered with material
contradictions, omissions and improvements; there was previous enmity
between husband of the prosecutrix and the accused; there was no injury on the
person of prosecutrix. On these facts, it was claimed that the prosecution had
miserably failed to prove its case, still the trial court passed the impugned
judgment against the accused which should be set aside and the accused should
be acquitted.
4. State has opposed the present appeal claiming that the conviction as well as
sentence passed against the accused do not require any interference by this
appellate court.
5. At the stage of final hearing, accused failed to appear and argue the matter,
therefore arguments only on behalf of State were heard.
6. The record of the trial court reveals that the prosecution has failed to prove
the caste certificate of the prosecutrix. The trial court has observed in para 6 of
its judgment that a photo copy of the caste certificate is available in the record,
which was issued by the Sarpanch of that village. It is also observed by the trial
court that the caste of prosecutrix was not challenged in the case. The photo
copy of caste certificate is clearly not admissible in evidence and, further, this
caste certificate was allegedly issued by the Sarpanch of the village, who was
never assigned with the authority to issue a caste certificate.
7. On the basis of foregoing discussion, this court comes to the conclusion
that, a photo copy of caste certificate, which was not duly proved in evidence,
and also for the Sarpanch having no authority to issue this caste certificate, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove through documentary evidence that
prosecutrix belonged to scheduled caste category.
8. The learned trial court has held the caste of victim proved also on the basis
that she was not cross-examined on this fact that she belonged to scheduled
caste category. 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.
9. From the foregoing discussion, it is established that the prosecution has
failed to prove the caste of prosecutrix either through any credible documentary
evidence or otherwise, therefore the conviction of accused for the offence of
Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act cannot be upheld.
10. The court has to now examine whether the offence of Sections 323 and
354 IPC have been proved against the accused for which he has been convicted
by the trial court. The prosecution has to this end relied upon the testimony of
prosecutrix (P.W.1), her husband (P.W.3), independent witnesses Buddhsen
(P.W.2), Daddi Saket (P.W.4), Gotia (P.W.5) and Dr. K. S. Nikam (P.W.7).
The appeal-memo has challenged the conviction on grounds of previous enmity
between the husband of prosecutrix and the accused, non-corroboration of
prosecution story by independent evidence, non-recovery of pieces of bangles
from the spot and non-corroboration of oral testimony by medical evidence. In
the light of these contentions, the prosecution evidence is to be evaluated.
11. According to FIR, the incident occurred on 27.1.2003 at around 4:30
p.m. while the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. K. S. Nikam (P.W.7)
on 31.1.2003. His medical report is Ex.P-6 and it suggests that he found only
one injury of the nature of abrasion on the left wrist of prosecutrix which, in his
opinion, was caused by a hard and blunt object and its duration was five to
seven days prior to the examination. This observation of medical officer does
not match with the date of incident as revealed in the FIR of Ex.P-7. The
incident allegedly occurred four days prior to this medical examination but the
doctor has given an opinion that the injury was sustained five to seven days
prior to examination. It has been claimed by the prosecutrix in her court
testimony that she was thrown on the ground and was also dragged but her
medical examination does not reveal any marks to support this claim. Thus, it
can be observed that the oral evidence given by prosecutrix has not been
supported by medical evidence.
12. On the angle of enmity between the two sides, prosecutrix expressed her
ignorance when she was given suggestion on this point during cross-
examination but her husband (P.W.3) has admitted the fact that he was imputed
with the charge of stealing pump and this accusation was made a month prior to
the incident by the accused. Further, he was anguished by this accusation.
Thus, the fact of enmity and that too of recent past are established through the
admissions made by the husband of prosecutrix.
13. In the light of this enmity between the two sides, the evidence of
prosecution deserves a meticulous analysis. It has already been discussed that
the prosecution story is not supported by the medical evidence. Buddhsen
(P.W.2) is claimed to be the eyewitness who reached on spot after hearing the
screams. In his court testimony also, he claims to have heard the screams and
further states that he reached on spot where prosecutrix was present but,
according to him, he did not see any incident and was only told by the
prosecutrix. Again contradicting himself, in his cross-examination he claims that
he did not find the prosecutrix and the accused on spot when he reached there
and was informed about the incident by the mother-in-law of prosecutrix. Thus,
prosecution story finds no support from this testimony.
14. Daddi Saket (P.W.4) claims that he reached on spot when he was
informed about the incident by the mother-in-law of prosecutrix but when he
arrived there, he did not find the accused present there. He is a close relative of
prosecutrix and still he failed to give any support to the prosecution case.
15. Gotia P.W.5 is another witness examined by prosecution to prove the
incident but her name is not mentioned in the FIR as an eyewitness. She is the
mother-in-law of prosecutrix. She has admitted that she did not see the incident
as she was at a distance and only heard the scream of prosecutrix. Here, she
has set out a totally new and different narrative by claiming that she was afraid
lest accused might not ravish her modesty. There being material improvements,
her testimony cannot be believed. Further, the presence of this witness on spot
has not been claimed even by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) or her husband (P.W.3).
16. The analysis of prosecution evidence held so far reveals that the previous
enmity between the husband of prosecutrix and the accused is an established
fact under which the husband of prosecutrix was facing accusation of
committing theft of a motor pump just one month prior to the incident; the
prosecution story has not been corroborated by any independent evidence,
although there were many who allegedly witnessed the incident; the prosecution
case has also not been supported by medical evidence. In these circumstances
this court comes to the finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case with
reliable and cogent evidence, therefore the accused deserves acquittal also
under the charges of Sections 323 and 354 IPC as well.
17. The foregoing discussion brings to the conclusion that the appeal
deserves to be allowed, hence the conviction and sentence of accused under
Sections 323 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act are set aside and he is
acquitted.
18. He is on bail, his bail-bonds stand discharged. The fine amount, if any,
deposited by the accused be refunded to him.
19. 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
