Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2425/2006 of MANHGU KUMHAR 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 VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2425 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
MANHGU KUMHAR S/O MANNATA KUMHAR, AGEDABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJARWARA,NO.2, P.S.VIJAYRAGHAVGARH, DISTT. KATNI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI MUKESH PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THEPOLICE STATION KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MS. PAPIYA GHOSH - 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.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989),District Katni in Special Case No.193/2006 on 30.11.2006 whereby the appellanthas been convicted under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 and Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo sixmonths R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. for sixmonths.
2 . The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that theprosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial,the appellant Manghu Kumhar remained in custody from 22.3.2006 to23.3.2006.
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 appellant underSection 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 354of Indian Penal Code.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that on 21.3.2006, the victim lodged the report at PoliceStation Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni registered as Crime No.1526/2006 underSection 354 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(XI) of SC/STAct. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. Theprosecution examined 08 witnesses in support of their case. PW-1 victim hasstated that the appellant caught her hand and tried to use force with an intentionto outrage her modesty. The statement of victim was supported by PW-2Kamla Prasad. The caste certificate was issued by Sarpanch who was not thecompetent authority to issue the caste certificate and therefore, the convictionof the appellant under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges punishableunder Section 3(1)(XI) o f SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.However, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge in respect ofcharges under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code are upheld as the findings arebased on due appreciation of evidence and consequently, the judgment ofconviction and sentence under Section 354 of IPC is hereby upheld.
5. However, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year2006, the appellant remained in jail from 22.3.2006 to 23.3.2006 and theprosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant onrecord. At that time, there was no minimum sentence prescribed under Section354 of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of theappellant to the extent of the period which he has already undergone andaccordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine is enhanced fromRs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced amount withina period of two months from today. The appellant is on bail, his personalbonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partlyallowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
Priya.P
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE