Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51716
1 CRA-1044-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1044 of 2010
MANOJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amardeep Seth - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the complainant/objector.
ORDER
With consent, arguments heard finally.
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2010 passed by
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar in
Sessions Trial No.157/2006 whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentenced to undergo R.I for six
months with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution story, the complainant-Vimal Ahirwar (PW-1)
belongs to Ahirwar caste which comes under scheduled caste whereas
appellant-accused does not belong to SC or ST category. On 09.11.2005,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51716
2 CRA-1044-2010
when the complainant went to meet to the leader of a political party at Beena
Railway Station; at that time, accused Manoj caught hold of his neck and
assaulted him by kicks & fists. The report was lodged 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that caste certificate of
complainant was issued by an incompetent authority and there was no proof
of the complainant belonging to the said caste and, therefore, no offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
made out. To bolster his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chalaniya
Dheemar v. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR 2012 MP 189 , wherein 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. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has also
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Pillu @ Pyarelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR 2012
MP 1309 wherein it is held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of
victim by any cogent and reliable document issued by the competent
authority, then mere oral deposition of witness would not deem to be proved.
It is also submitted that parties have amicably settled their dispute, which has
been verified by Registrar (J-II) of this Court on 23.09.2025. Other grounds
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51716
3 CRA-1044-2010
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 complainant belonged to scheduled caste category; the
conviction was based solely upon her testimony; the statements of
prosecution witnesses suffered with material contradictions, omissions and
improvements. 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromised the matter,
which has been verified by the Registrar (J-II) of this Court, but the offence
in which accused is convicted is not compoundable.
7. After perusal of the record, it reveals that the caste certificate was issued
by the Tehsildar, Tahsil-Beena, District Sagar (M.P.) who was admittedly not
a competent authority to issue caste certificate and no competent caste
certificate is made available on record. It is a settled position of law that in
the absence of the caste being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
conviction cannot be upheld under the provisions of the Prevention of
Atrocities Act.
8. Furthermore, in the case of Girish Kumar and another v. the State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51716
4 CRA-1044-2010
Madhya Pradesh : CRA No. 2074 of 2006 order dated 14.12.2023, the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court held that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is not
competent authority to issue the caste certificate.
9. After considering the facts, it is evident that the learned trial court erred
in holding that under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are proved. The findings of the
learned trial Court, in this regard is not based on proper appreciation of fact
and law, therefore, conviction and sentence passed under Section 3(1)(x) 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)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 19.05.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.157/2006, is set
aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
10. The appeal is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
