Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/459/2001 of GOVERDHAN @ GODHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 459 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
GOVERDHAN @ GODHAN SON OF SAMLU LODHI, AGED40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GUGHARA P.S. MAHARAJPURDISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.MAHARAJPUR DISTRICT - MANDLA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AATMARAM BAIN - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of convictiondated 25.01.2001, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for offenceunder Sections 341, 294 & 506-II of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, S.I. for one month and R.I.for six months, R.I. six months with fine Rs. 100/- respectively, with defaultstipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident occurred on 01.05.2000at 11:30 in the forenoon. It is alleged that the complainant was restrained at public road by the appellant and he was abused with caste slurs and alsothreatened with his life.
3. Initially, the appellant was tried under Sections 294, 341 and 506-B, ofthe I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but after trial he hasbeen convicted under aforesaid sections also.
4. Upon perusal of deposition of Etram (PW/1), Narayan Singh Thakur(PW/2), Hemchand (PW/3), Uttamlal (PW/4) and other witnesses finding ofthe trial Court seems to be well reasoned and impeccable and I am unable todisturb the findings in appeal.
5. However, it is seen that the court has taken into account the castecertificate Ex. P/3 which is issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Thesaid caste certificate is not on the form on which caste certificates are issued,even otherwise the Sarpanch is not competent to issued caste certificate toSC/ST category. Even the Sarpanch was not called in witness box to prove thecaste certificate and the complainant himself has proved the caste certificateissued by the Sarpanch. It is settled in law that caste status of the complainantunder Atrocities Act has to be proved conclusively. Kindly see : ChalaniyaDheemar vs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and Bharat Singh vs.State of M.P. 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 171.
6. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the caste statusof the complainant, hence, the appellant is acquitted for the offence underSection 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989. His conviction under Sections under Sections 294,341 and 506-B, of the I.P.C. is upheld and the appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigatingcircumstances of the case. The appellant was 40 years of age at the time ofincident and today he must be almost 63 years of age. The appellant was on bailduring investigation and trial and he is on suspension of sentence during thependency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he hasmisused the terms of bail during all these years. He has been facing investigationand trial and is also contesting the present appeal since last about 23 years.
8. Appellant has remained in jail for three days during trial. However,from the record the trial Court, it appears that presently the appellant must bearound 63 years of age. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to alreadyundergone and fine amount enhanced to Rs.3000/-.
9. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today failingwhich sentence originally awarded by the trial Court would come into force andthe appellant will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.
10. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order forinformation and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellant be discharged.
MISHRA
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE