Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2271/2004 of SADANLAL Vs GINDIYA BAI on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2271 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
SADANLAL, S/O PANCHAMLAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PHOOLSAGAR, OCCUPATION :COMPOUNDER, GOVERNMENT VETERINARYHOSPITAL, MANDLA, MADHYA PRADESH.
(BY SHRI ADITYA VYAS - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
GINDIYA BAI, W/O MANGANLAL KATIYA, AGED ABOUT55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHIRKHIRI, P.S. NAINPUR,TEHSIL NAINPUR, DISTRICT MANDLA, MADHYAPRADESH.
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THEREPONDENT/STATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing, this day, the 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 13.12.2004passed by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No.90/2003, whereby thelearned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence underSection 3(1(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the incident took place on04.08.1998 at around 05.00 p.m. The daughter of complainant was cleaningutensils in the open area of her house and at that time, the present appellant isstated to have entered into her house and abused her and also called out hercaste name. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of complainant and came nearto her in inappropriate manner. When the complainant called for help, then theappellant is said to have stated that he will spread some disease in the village. Itis also the case of prosecution that the police did not lodge the report ofincident, then the complainant filed private complaint on 13.08.1998, which wasreturned and after return, it was filed before the Court of Chief JudicialMagistrate and ultimately, it was committed to Special Court on 18.09.2003.
3. The complainant has entered witness box as PW-1 and supportedprosecution version. She stated in her cross examination that the accused is wellknown to the complainant and they usually visit each others house. Thedaughter of complainant also entered witness box as PW-4 and she alsosupported prosecution version but stated that the accused has never behaved insuch manner with any women in the village previously and on the date ofincident, he was under influence of alchohol and whatever has been done byhim has been done under influence of alchohol. This is to be found in para 10of cross examination of PW-4.
4. No Caste Certificate has been produced in the case on behalf ofprosecution. The prosecution witnesses have said that they belong toScheduled Caste Community, however, they have failed to produce any casteCertificate. It is settled in law that the Caste Certificate has to be proved by theprosecution and there cannot be any presumption as to caste status for upholding guilt of accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It has been held by this Court in the caseof Chalaniya Dheemar Vs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and BharatSingh Vs. State of M.P. [2006 (4) MPLJ 171], that it is the duty of theprosecution to conclusively prove the caste of complainant and there cannot beany presumption as to caste status of complainant. In the present case, there isno Caste Certificate on record.
5. Further, the appellant had come out with a specific plea of allibi andthe attendance Certificate of being present in Veterinary Clinic, Linga paudi wasproduced by him as Ex.D-1 and this Certificate was duly proved by DW-1 whois official witness and is posted as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer. The saidwitness also produced the attendance register of the date of incident. TheCertificate (Ex.D-1) duly mentioned that the appellant was present at veterinaryclinic in the morning as well as in the evening. The timings clash with the timingsstated in the complaint of the alleged incident.
6. The Court below has merely disbelieved the Certificate (Ex.D-1) on theground that the distance of clinic from the place of occurrence of the incident isnot very much. However, the exact distance is not mentioned and looking to thenature of incident as narrated in the complaint, it appears that the incident wentfor about one hour starting from 05.00 p.m. whereas the attendance Certificate(Ex.D-1) establishes presence of appellant at his official place of duty between05.00 to 06.00 p.m.
7. Consequently, looking to non production of Caste Certificate as wellas the plea of allibi duly supported by Ex.D-1, the conviction of the appellantunder Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
9. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
10. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.
11. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.
veni
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE