Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1442/2003 of JAMUNA PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF M.P. 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. 1442 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
JAMUNA PRASAD, S/O GOVINDRAM UPADHYAY, AGEDABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHATURA, P.S.BAIDHAN, DISTRICT SIDHI, MADHYA PRADESH.
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.BAIDHAN, DISTRICT SIDHI.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI BRIJENDRA KUSHWAHA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
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
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2003passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sidhi in Special Case No.40/2000,whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission ofoffence under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 294 and 323 of IPC andsentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine ofRs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on02.04.1999. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant andcomplainant Tarawati and her children are residents of some Village. It isalleged that the son of complainant namely Anand had gone to school on02.04.1999 alongwith his sister Sangeeta. Upon returning from school Sangeetatold the complainant that the appellant is beating her son Anand and theappellant is also stated to have abused the complainant. The incident is said tohave occurred on account of some dispute and quarrels between the daughterof present appellant and children of complainant in the School and this quarrelamong children spilled over to parents.
3 . The appellant has been convicted for causing hurt to minor childAnand and also under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. As per the evidence and the material adduced on behalf of theprosecution, the Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences asmentioned in para-1 above.
5. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Tarawati, PW-5 Anand,PW-6 Sangeeta, PW-7 Sanjay, PW-8 Pramod and other witnesses. This Courthas carefully gone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
6. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove thecaste of the complainant. No caste certificate has been placed on record by theprosecution.
7. It is settled in law that the caste status of complainant under theScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(hereinafter referred as the Act, 1989) has to be proved beyond reasonabledoubt in conclusive manner.
8. The trial Court has proceeded on mere assumption about caste ofcomplainant. It has been held by this Court in the case of Chalaniya DheemarVs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and Bharat Singh Vs. State of M.P.[2006 (4) MPLJ 171], that caste of complainant has to be proved conclusively.In the light of law laid down by this Court, conviction under Section 3(1)(x) ofthe Act, 1989 cannot be sustained and the appellant is acquitted under Section3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989.
9. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellant/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 1999and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2003, theaccused/appellant has been under trial or appearing before the Court ascondition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on recordregarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the longperiod since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period alreadyundergone by him (two days).
10. Looking to the record of trial Court, the appellant would be almost 75years of age presently and as per PW-1 Dr. Badri Singh, there was no visibleinjury on the body of injured Anand.
11. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (two days).
12. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
13. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
14. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
16. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.
veni
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE