CRA/1746/2001 of BAIGADAS @ RAJUDAS Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and finding dated 28.09.2001 passed by Special Judge SC-ST (PA) Act, in Special CaseNo.131/2000 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offencespunishable under Section 354, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) SC-ST(PA) 1989 and sentenced to six months and fine of Rs.700/- and six monthsrigorous imprisonment with the fine with default stipulation.

2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on 09.05.1998 at about09:00 p.m. the victim went to answer the call of a nature and the accused wentthere and by holding her hand pulled the victim and the victim protested the act.

Thereafter, the matter was narrated to her husband - Kaluram Choudhary, whenKaluram Choudhary was asked the appellant why he has committed such actthen other co-accused persons reached there and started beating KaluramChoudhary. They also abused to Kaluram. The matter was reported to PoliceStation Motinala on 10.05.2008, on that basis the FIR (P/1) as Crime No.9/1998under Section 354, 323, 294 of IPC and under Section 3(1), (xi) of SC- ST(PA) Act, was registered. After investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.The trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties passed the impugnedjudgment and convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case theconviction under Section 3(1)(xi) cannot be maintained as no caste certificatehas been proved by the prosecution, the document on which the trial Court hasrelied on (Ex.P/2) i.e. issued by the Sarpanch of Village Khalodi, which cannotbe relied upon and he has relied on the judgment of this Court passed in CRANo.2191/1997 dated 07.01.2020 and CRA No.183/2005 dated 08.09.2016where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Sarpanch asCounsellor of Nagar Panchayat has no authority to issue such caste certificateand if the prosecution is based on such document then, the conviction cannotbe held.

4. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment on Bharat Singh vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (1) MPHT 451where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that if the appellant/accused has admittedthat the complainant is of a particular caste no conviction can be based on theevidence that caste came into the scheduled caste.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State failed to indicate any document i.e. caste certificate has been produced by the prosecution that wasissued by the competent authority SDO (Revenue).

6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1), (xi) of SC-ST (PA) Act, cannot be maintained. Hence, the conviction under this act bequashed and the appellant is acquitted from that charge.

7. For the rest of the charges the appellant has argued that the jailsentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has argued that ifthe conviction is maintained then she has no objection to reduce the jailsentence.

9. I have considered and perused the record, the victim was of 30 yearsof married woman and the appellant is of 30 years of age and both are the sameage group, no previous conviction proved against the appellant hence the jailsentence 354 IPC is reduced.

10. Learned trial Court himself has imposed only fine for the offence of

323. For offence punishable under Section 354 the jail sentence only sixmonths, as the case of the year 1998 since then 25 years, have been passed.Before the Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 no minimum jail sentence wasrequired for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.

11. The appellant has already undergone jail custody i.e. 30.08.1998 to14.09.1998 & 14 days, hence no purpose is served by resending the appellantinto jail custody. Hence, the sentencing part of the judgment regarding 354 and323 is modified.

12. For the offence of 354 IPC the jail sentence is reduced to the periodalready undergone and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and for theoffence punishable under Section 323 and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.1,000/-. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within threemonths from the receipt of copy of the judgment in default, he shall undergo foreach default three months and one months simple imprisonment The fineamount already deposited by the appellant before the trial Court shall beadjusted in the fine amount as above. After the fine amount is deposited,Rs.5,000/- be paid by the trial Court to complainant Ms. Mayabai, W/oKaluram, R/o Village Bhai Bahan Nala, Police Thana, Motinal District Mandla(M.P).

13. Thus, in short the appellant is acquitted from the charges underSection 3(1), (xi) of SC- ST (PA) Act, 1989 and for other offence theconviction is maintained, but the jail sentence is reduced as already discussed.

14. With the above observation the appeal is partly allowed.

15. Let the copy of this judgment along with its record be sent to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.

SN

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE