Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2131/2003 of TILAKRAJ SINGH 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 JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2131 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
TILAKRAJ SINGH S/O HARIHAR SINGH BAGHEL, AGEDABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/OVILLAGE HANUMANGADH, P.S. CHURHAT, DISTRICTSIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH : POLICESTATION CHURHAT, DISTRICT SIDHI (M.P.)
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LOHDI - ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on hearing this day, t h 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 conviction dated 29.11.2003, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for offenceunder Section 323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castesand the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced toundergo R.I. for two months and R.I. for six months with fine Rs.250/-respectively, with default stipulations.
2 . T he prosecution story in brief is that the incident occurred on29.10.2000, there was some altercation between the sons of complainant withthe present appellant, when she reached the spot to rescue her sons, then the appellant has stated to have abused the complainant and hit her with stick.
3. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of theI.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. Upon perusal of deposition of complainant Belakali (PW/2), Tejbali(PW/3), Dr. K.P. Gupta (PW/1) as well as hostile witnesses PW/4, PW/5 andPW/6, finding of the trial Court seems to be well reasoned and impeccable andI am unable to disturb the findings in appeal.
5. The Court has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. However, no caste certificate of the complainant or any other member ofher family has been placed on record by prosecution. It is settled in law thatcaste status of the complainant under Atrocities Act has to be provedconclusively. Kindly see : Chalaniya Dheemar 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. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove caste status of thecomplainant.
6. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. However, convictionunder other provisions is maintained.
7. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigatingcircumstances of the case. The appellant was 41 years of age at the time ofincident and today he must be almost 64 years of age. The appellant was on bailduring investigation and trial and he is on suspension of sentence during the pendency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he hasmisused the terms of bail during all these years. The appellant has alreadyundergone jail sentence of six days. He has been facing investigation and trialand is also contesting the present appeal since last about 20 years.
8. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit toreduce the jail sentence to one already undergone by the appellant and the fineamount is enhanced from Rs.250/- to Rs.5000/-.
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.
rj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE