Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRIMINAL APPEAL 9/2005 on 31 October 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1846 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1.HEERADAS S/O GULLAIYA DAS PANKA, AGEDABOUT 55 YEARS, VIL-BHADANGATOLA,PS.BICHHIYA,TAH-BICHHIYA,MANDLA(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.RAJESHHIRADAS, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,VIL-BHADANGA TOLA,PS.BICHHIYA,TAH-BICHHIYA,MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINEET MISHRA-ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.BICHHIYA DIST. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY-PANEL LAWYER )
.....RESPONDENTS
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.
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence passed by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No.9/2005whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v)of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergoRI for 6-6 months with fine of Rs.500-500 and in default 1 & half month RI-1& half month and also convicted under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 3-3 months R.I.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant-Heeradas remained in custody from 31.10.2004 to 8.11.2004 andappellant Rajesh from 6.11.2004 to 9.11.2004 . He prayed for acquittal of theappellants.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Statesupported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved theincident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellants.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that one Faggubai @ Fagni Bai lodged a report in AjakMandla on 25.10.2004 in respect of the incident allegedly happened on19.7.2004 registered as Crime No.56/2004 under Section 447/34 of the IPC and3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Afterinvestigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution examined 16witnesses. PW 1-Pooran Singh, PW2-Poonaram, PW3-Ram Singh, PW4-Fagobai supported the prosecution case and stated that appellants illegallytresspassed the land belonging to Fagobai and started cultivating the same andwhen the same was objected by Fagobai, they threatened and insulted by usingthe name of her caste.
5. Learned Special Judge after considering the statements of thewitnesses and the material available on record convicted the appellants andsentenced them as stated herein above. So far as the offence punishable underSections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989are concerned, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the case of the victim
beyond reasonable doubt because without proving the fact that victim was themember of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and the accused was not amember of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, the provisions would notbe applicable. The oral statement is not sufficient to prove the case of thevictim. The prosecution has produced the caste certificate Exh. P-5 andexamined PW14 to prove the caste certificate but the caste certificate was notissued by the competent authority and the same was issued by Surpanch ofGram Panchayat Khatola and therfore it cannot be accepted that the caste of thevictim was duly proved and consequently, the appellants are acquitted from thecharges under 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, however in respect of the findings recorded by the learned Special Judgefor convicting the appellant under Sction 447 of the IPC is concerned, thefindings are based on due appreciation of evidence and I do not find any reasonto interfere in the findings and the conviction under Section 447 of the IPC is upheld.
6. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2004, the appellants remained in custody for some days, the prosecution hasnot brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants on record and thereis no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 447 of Indian PenalCode, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellants to the extentof the period which they have already undergone and accordingly, the jailsentence is reduced. However, fine is imposed as Rs.2000-2000/-. Theappellants shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two monthsfrom today. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds bedischarged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
P/-
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE