CRIMINAL APPEAL 26/05 on 15 October 2005

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 (Attorcities), District Mandla in SpecialCase No.26/05 on 15.10.2005 whereby the appellants have been convictedunder Section 294 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one month R.I. andSection 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. andfine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to further undergo R.I. for 1[1/2 ]months.

2 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant Ramaiya Bai remained in custody from 13.10.2004 to 18.10.2004.However, appellant Sanju Mishra did not remain in custody for a single day. Heprayed for acquittal of the appellants.

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 appellantsunder Sections 294 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the FIR was lodged by Sukhram at Police Station Ajak,District Dindori against the appellants on 10.10.2004 registered as CrimeNo.9/2004 under Sections 341, 294, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.The prosecution examined 07 witnesses in support of their case. PW-5Sukhram Singh narrated the incident and involvement of the appellants. Thecaste certificate of Sukhram Singh was issued by Sarpanch of Gram PanchayatGannagudha. However, the Sarpanch was not the competent authority to issuethe caste certificate and in absence of any documentary evidence regarding thecaste of the complainant and only on the basis of the oral statement of thewitnesses, it cannot be accepted that the complainant is the member of SC/STand therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside and the appellants are acquittedfrom the charges punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. However, the findings recorded by the learned SpecialJudge in respect of charges under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code are based on due appreciation of evidence and I do not find any reason to interfere in thefindings and conviction under Section 294 of IPC and consequently, thejudgment of conviction and conviction under Section 294 of IPC is herebyupheld.

5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2004, the appellant Ramaiya Bai remained in jail from 13.10.2004 to 18.10.2004and the prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of theappellants on record. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribed underSection 294 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentenceof the appellants to the extent of the period which they have already undergoneand accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine of Rs.2500-2500/-is imposed upon the appellants. The appellants shall deposit the fine amountwithin a period of two months from today. The fine amount be paid to thevictims by the trial Court as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Theappellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.

Priya.P

(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE