Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prateek Sanodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
1 CRA-10297-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10297 of 2022
PRATEEK SANODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1559 of 2023
KU. DISHA MESHRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Seoni, District-Seoni in SCATR No.200032/2013
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
2 CRA-10297-2022
dated 29.10.2022 by which the appellant Prateek Sanodiya in CRA
No.10297/2022 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month with fine amount of
Rs.1,000/-, under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life
with fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 309 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine
of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Appeal No.1559/2023 has been filed by the victim being aggrieved
with the acquittal recorded in favour of the co-accused Gaurav Dehariya.
3. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that
victim Ms. Disha Meshram (PW-8) along with her friend Nidhi Sakatpuriya
(PW-9), on 18.02.2013 at about 18:05 hours, on scooty Pept, was going to
market, when they reached ahead Ganesh Chowk, Vaishnavi Hospital, Seoni,
all of a sudden, the appellant Prateek Sanodiya along with co-accused came
there and stopped her scooty and assaulted victim Ms. Disha Meshram (PW-
8) with knife on her face, neck, throat, stomach and hands and threatened
that he will kill himself. After that, the appellant injured himself and thus
attempted suicide. Nearby persons carried the victim and the appellant in
Civil Hospital, Seoni. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/11) was recorded by Police
Station Kotwali, District Seoni on 18.02.2013 at 20:35 hours, on that basis,
FIR was registered in crime No.78/2013 in Police Station Seoni. The injured
victim was referred to Higher Centre. On that, his family members carried
him to the Suretech Hospital and Research Centre, Nagpur where she was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
3 CRA-10297-2022
treated. Appellant after the treatment along with co-accused were arrested
and from their possession, motor-cycle and knife were recovered. Charge-
sheet was filed under Sections 307, 309, 354, 120-B and 341 r/w 34 of IPC
and Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act.
4. The trial Court framed and read over the charges under Sections
341, 326 and 309 of IPC and Section 326, 25(1)(v)(B) of Arms Act and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The co-accused under Sections 341,
326/34 and 120-B of IPC to the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt
and prayed for trial.
5. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and examined the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing
both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, hence, these appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court
has not appreciated the fact that as per the query report submitted by doctor,
who firstly attended her, injuries were simple in nature and when she was
admitted in Nagpur Hospital, plastic surgery was done and thus, no
disfigurement remained after the treatment but the trial Court has not
considered this aspect.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in para
Nos.45 and 46 of the judgment of trial Court, the same facts had stated that
the appellant had not caused wrongful restraint to Nidhi Sakatpuriya (PW-9)
and in para No.74 further acquitted the appellant Prateek Sanodiya for the
offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC whereas also convicted the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
4 CRA-10297-2022
appellant Prateek Sanodiya in Section 341 of IPC along with other Sections.
8. The trial Court has not considered the amendment of the Scheduled
Caste and the Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, as
before the amendment, Section 3(2)(v) was "on the ground" that such person
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that was
amended as per the amendment dated 26.01.2016 and this offence had taken
place, on 18.02.2013 and at that time, there was no amendment and the
prosecution failed to prove that the offence was committed on the ground
that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial
Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 309 of IPC. As after amendment and under the provision of Section
115 of Mental Healthcare Act, Section 309 of IPC remains only in the statute
book as held in Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 2 and
also relied on the judgment of Ku. Shital Dinkar Bhagat Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online Bombay 2765 in which it is held that Section
115 (1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has overriding effect to Section
309 of IPC and the appellant cannot be tried for the offence punishable under
Section 309 of IPC as provided in Section 120 of the IPC.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
appellant may be held guilty only for the offence punishable under Section
324 of IPC and the appellant is a young person and he has suffered the
incarceration from 23.02.2013 to 16.05.2013 and after passing of the
judgment from 29.10.2022 till now, he is in custody, hence, the jail sentence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
5 CRA-10297-2022
be limited to the period already undergone.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of victim Shri Bhupendra
Shukla has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the co-
accused/respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya, as on the date of incident, the co-
accused Prateek Sanodiya (appellant in CRA No.10297/2022) was sitting in
the motor-cycle of the respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya and both had
followed the victim and the co-accused/respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya
had over taken the scooty and stopped the victim and after that the co-
accused/respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya had assaulted on her scooty and
victim and her friend both fell down but the trial Court has not considered
this aspect whereas the act of both the accused persons were done in
furtherance of the common intention.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Siddharth Datt has
submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the fact that the co-
accused Prateek Sanodiya alighted from the motor-cycle all of a sudden and
respondent No.2 was not knowing that co-accused Prateek Sanodiya was
having any knife with him and when the co-accused Prateek Sanodiya
alighted from the motor-cycle he went away from the spot and he did not
wait and not participated in the offence. Respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya
was having no previous knowledge or pre-meditation of mind by which the
inference of the common intention could be drawn. Hence, the trial Court has
rightly acquitted the co-accused Gaurav Dehariya, therefore, no interference
is called for.
13. Learned counsel for the State has opposed and has submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
6 CRA-10297-2022
the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant Prateek Sanodiya and
therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal be dismissed.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. On the point of injury and the involvement of appellant Prateek
Sanodiya, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/11) was lodged by the victim Ku. Disha
Meshram (PW-8) and in her statement, she has clearly stated that she was
well-acquainted with the appellant. On 18.02.2013, at about 5:30 - 6:00 pm,
she along with her friend Nidhi Sakatpuriya (PW-9) was going to Budhwari
Bazar on scooty, she was driving the scooty and her friend was sitting
behind. When she reached near Arya Samaj Temple, in motor-cycle that was
driven by Gaurav Dehariya and Prateek Sanodiya was sitting behind Gaurav
Dehariya overtook her scooty and on that she applied the break, Gaurav hit
her scooty by leg and she fell down, on that Prateek sitting as a pillion rider
caught hold her hairs, abused her by the caste name and started assaulting her
with knife, the 10-12 assaults, she suffered injuries in her neck, in throat, in
face and in stomach, she tried to save herself on that, she suffered the
injuries on her hands. On that the persons nearby gathered and the appellant
Prateek assaulted himself by knife. Advocate Anuj Deshmukh (PW-11) and
Rajik Akil (PW-7) saved her and carried her to clinic. The story and the
involvement of this appellant Prateek have been supported by Nidhi
Sakatpuriya (PW-9) who was sitting behind in the same scooty and also by
Rajik Akil (PW-7), M.R. Khan (PW-10) and Anuj Deshmukh (PW-11).
16. Dr. P. Surya (PW-16) who read the MLC report prepared by G.L.
Kumre has stated that on 18.02.2013, victim Ms. Disha was brought in Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
7 CRA-10297-2022
Hospital, Seoni, on examination, he found the incised wound in the middle
of neck ad-measuring 4cm x 4cm x 2cm, incised wound on left side of the
chin ad-measuring 10cm x 1cm x 1cm, incised wound on left hand ad-
measuring 4cm x 2cm x 1cm, incised wound on left hand wrist ad-measuring
6cm x 4cm x 1cm, incised wound on right hand ad-measuring 6cm x 4cm x
4cm, incised wound on right hand little finger ad-measuring 10cm x 2cm x
1cm and incised wound in the abdomen near the navel ad-measuring 10cm x
4cm x 2cm and this witness as per treating Doctor, the injuries were simple
in nature. Thus, it is also supported by the medical evidence that the victim
has suffered the injuries by sharp cutting object.
17. Furthermore, witness Dr. Deepak Deshmukh (PW-12) who has
treated the victim in Suretech Hospital, Dhantauli Nagpur has stated that
victim Ku. Disha Meshram (PW-8), aged 16 years was admitted in the
Hospital from 19.02.2013 to 23.02.2013. It was a case of multiple stab
injuries and the story was narrated to him that on 18.02.2013 at 5:00 pm in
Ganesh Chowk Seoni, some unknown persons had assaulted the victim. He
has supported the injuries suffered by the victim and submitted the bed head
ticket before the trial Court as Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/17 in which, he has stated
the following injuries:-
1:- Stitch wound 2cm long on right side of chin. 2:- Stitch on 2cm long
in midline 3cm above suprasternal notch. 3:- 'V' Shaped lacerated wound
4cm long and 5cm deep in Rt. Hypochondrium just below costal margin. 4:-
Stitch wound on back Lt. Hand 3cm long. 5:- Lacerated wound 2cm long on
base of Lt. Thumb. 6:- Lacerated wound 5cm long on base of Lt. Index
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
8 CRA-10297-2022
Finger. 7:- Lacerated wound 5cm long on base of Rt. Finger. 8:- Lacerated
wound 4cm long on Lt. Hypothenar eminence. 9:- Stitch wound 5cm long
back of Lt. Hand externally from base of little finger proximally. 10:- Stitch
wound back of Rt. Hand 1cm long. 11:- Stitch wound 3cm long on ulnar
aspect of forearm. 12:- Lacerated wound 2cm long over Rt. Mastoid process
and has opined that due to injury suffered in the face, the injury was grievous
as it caused disfiguration and on the cross-examination of these witnesses, no
fact has been brought in which the witnesses can be disbelieved.
18. Further, the statement of the victim is supported regarding
appellant Prateek Sanodiya by Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/11 that was recorded by
Bhuwanlal Batti (PW-17) and in that also, it has been clearly mentioned that
appellant Prateek Sanodiya came, obstructed her and assaulted her with knife
on the cheeks, neck, stomach and both the hands. Thus, it is clear by the
prosecution that the appellant Prateek Sanodiya has assaulted the victim with
knife i.e. sharp cutting object and injuries were caused on her face, neck,
stomach and hands and thus, injuries suffered in the face come in the
grievous injury.
19. On the point of wrongful restraint, from the evidence of the victim
as well as Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/11, it is clear that the victim was going on the
scooty and the appellant Prateek Sanodiya suddenly came there and
obstructed her by which she fell down from her scooty and after that
appellant assaulted her and the trial Court has also considered this aspect in
para Nos.45 and 46 of the judgment that the appellant Prateek Sanodiya
obstructed the victim and has concluded the offence regarding victim Ku.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
9 CRA-10297-2022
Disha Meshram (PW-8). Due to clerical mistake, in para No.74, has wrongly
acquitted the appellant whereas in the conviction had convicted the appellant
for the offence under Section 341 of IPC also and sentenced too for Section
341 of IPC.
20. On the point of conviction, Section 309 of IPC considered. It is
clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant
assaulted himself by knife and caused injuries to himself, though the
prosecution has not examined any Medical Officer to prove how much
injuries the appellant suffered and the trial Court has discussed this fact but
as per the amended provision of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 as discussed in
the judgment of Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 2
discussing the Mental Health Act, 2017 and Section 309 of IPC in para
Nos.346, 347 and 348 and considering the provisions of Sections 115 and
120 of the Act held as under :-
" 346. Section 115 largely does away with
one other outmoded Section of the Indian
Penal Code, namely, Section 309. This
Section reads as follows.
"115. Presumption of severe stress in case of
attempt to commit suicide. (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) any person who attempts to commit
suicide shall be presumed, unless proved
otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not
be tried and punished under the said Code.
(2) The appropriate Government shall have a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
10 CRA-10297-2022
duty to provide care, treatment and
rehabilitation to a person, having severe
stress and who attempted to commit suicide,
to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to
commit suicide."
347. Instead of the inhumane Section 309
which has remained on the statute book for
over 150 years, Section 115 makes it clear
that Section 309 is rendered largely
ineffective, and on the contrary, instead of
committing a criminal offence, any person
who attempts to commit suicide shall be
presumed to have severe stress and shall not
be tried and punished under Section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code. More importantly, the
Government has an affirmative duty to
provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to
such a person to reduce the risk of recurrence
of that person's attempt to commit suicide.
This parliamentary declaration under Section
115 again is in keeping with the present
constitutional values, making it clear that
humane measures are to be taken by the
Government in respect of a person who
attempts to commit suicide instead of
prosecuting him for the offence of attempt to
commit suicide.
348. And finally, Section 120 of the Act
reads as under:-
"120. Act to have overriding effect .- The
provisions of this Act shall have overriding
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
11 CRA-10297-2022
time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any law other than
this Act."
21. On the point of mental health, the case of Ku. Shital Dinkar Bhagat
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online Bom. 2765 Bombay High Court
has discussed the law in para No.7 of the judgment:-
7. "Thus, is it apparent that the person who
tried to commit suicide, enjoys a statutory
presumption about mental stress and having
regard to such presumption, he has been
excluded from putting on trial. Though, it is
submitted that during trial the presumption
can be lifted, however the statute itself
precludes to put said person on trial. We have
examined material from which we could
gather nothing to infer that the applicant was
normal and not under stress. It reveals that
the applicant though carried knife
unpredictably caused injury to herself and
thus, it is an instance of committing the act
under mental stress. In view of Section
115(1) of the Act of 2017 which was
overriding effect to Section 309 of the Penal
Code, 1860, the applicant cannot be tried for
the offence of Section 309 of the Penal Code,
1860."
22. In the light of the above legal provision, the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
309 of IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
12 CRA-10297-2022
23. Also considered the conviction under Section 3 (2) (v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The prosecution has proved the caste of the victim by examining Kameshwar
Choubey (PW-4) that as per the official record, the victim Ms. Disha
Meshram (PW-8) D/o Shrikant Meshram belongs to the Mahar community
and the certificate was issued on 06.09.2007. Caste certificate is Ex.P/8 that
was issued by SDM, Waraseoni P.C. Dehariya and the victim has also stated
in her statement that she belongs to the Mahar community and it comes into
Scheduled Caste community and this fact has not been denied by the
appellant in statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he has also
admitted that he is Kurmi by caste. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden
of proving that fact is upon him and on that basis if the appellant belongs to
any other caste like S.C. or S.T., it was his duty to prove that fact but he has
not proved or denied in the accused examination that he is not a member of
Kurmi caste.
24. Thus, it is clear that trial Court has also concluded that the
appellant and victim were knowing each other and on that basis and applying
the presumption under Section 8(ga) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has concluded that appellant was
knowing the caste of the victim. The trial Court has not considered this
aspect that the date of offence is 18.02.2013 and at that time, Section-3 as it
was punishable on the basis that whoever being not a member of Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community in offence under IPC (45 of 1860)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
13 CRA-10297-2022
punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against the
person or property "on the ground" that such person is a member
of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe such person belongs to such
member shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
25. The act was amended in the year, 2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016 and by
that the drastic change was made in the Act that whoever not being a member
of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10
years or more against the person or property "knowing that" such person is a
member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
Thus, prior to amendment in the year, 2016 as on the date of offence, the
offence was punishable, if the act was done on the ground of caste.
26. In this case, no evidence has been brought on record that the
offence was committed on the ground that the victim belongs to the member
of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe but it appears that both were
studying in the same school and were knowing each other and some reasons
that are the best known to them, the offence was committed.
27. Furthermore, Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not create any offence but
provides enhanced punishment. Section 3(2)(v) is not substantial offence but
it is an instrument to punish for stringent punishment that is provided for the
same offence against the general public, in case of offence against particular
class to protect the interest of that particular class.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
14 CRA-10297-2022
28. The Apex Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 1876 has discussed the point on the
ground of, in para No.9 as under:-
"Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that
whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any
offence under the Indian Penal Code
punishable with imprisonment for a term of
ten years or more against a person or
property on the ground that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or such property belongs to such
member, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine. In the
present case, there is no evidence at all to the
effect that the appellant committed the
offence alleged against him on the ground
that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the
provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the
sine qua non is that the victim should be a
person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under
the Indian Penal Code is committed against
him on the basis that such a person belongs
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In
the absence of such ingredients, no offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In
that view of the matter, we think, both the
trial court and the High Court missed the
essence of this aspect. In these
circumstances, the conviction under the
aforesaid provision by the trial court as well
as by the High Court ought to be set aside."
29. Thus, the trial Court has wrongly held that the appellant Prateek
Sanodiya liable for the punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
15 CRA-10297-2022
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
30. Also considered on the point of the involvement of the co-
accused/respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya, in this point firstly, in the Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.P/11) that was lodged by the victim has clearly sated that when
she reached near the Vaishnavi Hospital, appellant Prateek Sanodiya all of a
sudden, reached there and stopped her scooty and started assaulting her.
31. Thus, the fact that Gaurav Dehariya present on the spot is missing.
In Ex.P/14 though not admissible evidence, she has stated that the appellant
reached along with Gaurav but he has not disclosed that Gaurav was on
motor-cycle and driving the motorcycle and he was knowing that the
appellant Prateek Sanodiya was having any weapon with him. The victim has
improved the version of the statement before the Court that Gaurav hit her
scooty by leg and by that she fell down.
32. Furthermore, from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, no
active participation has been stated by any witness about the Gaurav and the
trial Court on this aspect has elaborately discussed in para Nos.46 to 53 and
on that basis, has acquitted respondent No.2 Gaurav Dehariya, hence,
conclusion drawn by the trial Court are proper. Hence, no interference is
called for in the well reasoned acquittal of respondent No.2.
33. Thus, after the above discussion, the appeal filed by appellant
Prateek Sanodiya is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 309 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.
34. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20953
16 CRA-10297-2022
which the offence was committed, the jail sentence of the appellant Prateek
Sanodiya for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is reduced to
the period of R.I. of 5 (five) years with fine amount as imposed by the trial
Court and with default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. The conviction and sentence of
the trial Court is approved. Cr.A.No.10297/2022 is disposed off
accordingly.
35. Cr.A. No.1559/2023, the appeal of victim Ku. Disha Meshram is
dismissed.
36. The substantial jail sentence shall run concurrently.
37. The order of the Trial Court regarding the case property is
affirmed.
38. With the copy of judgment, the record of the Trial Court be
returned back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
AT
