Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2030/2001 of ACHAL 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, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
ACHAL SINGH S/O LEELA KISHAN, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST, CASTE -MEENA, R/O VILLAGE SHEELKHEDA, POLICE STATIONAHMADPUR, DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RITESH DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATIONSCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBESKALYAN PRAKOSHTHA, SEHORE, DISTRICT SEHORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
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
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2001passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Sehore in Special Case No.43/2000 wherebythe learned trial Judge has convicted appellant for commission of offence underSection 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him toundergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution case against the appellant is that the incidentoccurred on 18.07.1999. The appellant is stated to have been caught hold ofhands of the prosecutrix and dragged her. When she was screaming for help,then her family members came on the spot. Then the appellant is said to haveverbally abused the prosecutrix and ran away.
3. Looking to the evidence on record and the statements of the prosecutrix(PW/2), Pyarenath (PW/3), Rajubai (PW/4) and hostile witness Sajanbai(PW/5) and other witnesses, this court is satisfied that the prosecution has beenable to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There isnothing in the cross-examination, which may demolish the case of theprosecution.
4. However, the trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi)o f Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. To prove the caste status of the prosecutrix, the prosecution hasexhibited the caste certificate as Ex.P/1, which is proved by the Mathura Prasad(PW/1). The caste certificate has been issued by the Sarpanch of the GramPanchayat and it does not bear any number or dispatch number. It has beenissued on plain paper and not in the form of a caste certificate. The certificateonly mentioned that the prosecutrix belongs to Sapera caste, which is ascheduled caste. However, the certificate does not mention that this castementioned in which entry of Presidential list of scheduled castes. The Sarpanchentered into witness box as PW/1, but his deposition does not inspire anyconfidence. It is undisputed that the Sarpanch is not a competent authority toissue caste certificate of a member of scheduled caste community. It is settledin law that for the offences under the Atrocities Act, the prosecution is under obligation to conclusively prove the caste status of the complainant and eventhe admission of the accused is not sufficient. Thus, the conviction of theappellant under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained in view of thejudgments passed in the case of Chalaniya Dheemar vs. State of MadhyaPradesh reported in 2012 ILR MP 189 and in the case of Bharat Singh vs.
State of M.P. reported in 2006(4) MPLJ 171 and it is held that caste statusof prosecutrix is not proved beyond doubt. Hence, the appellant is acquittedfrom the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but his conviction under Section354 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld.
5. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be takenin consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The instant case is ofthe year 1999 and the appellant has suffered investigation, trial and appellatestage since last about 24 years. He has already undergone jail sentence of 04days during trial. The long pendency of trial and appeal in the present case ismitigating circumstance to commute the sentence that he has already undergone.The appellant has remained on bail during trial and during pendency of thepresent appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he has misused theterms of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, this Court deems it fit toreduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him(four days) and to enhance the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/accused issentenced under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code to undergoimprisonment for the period he has already undergone (four days), subject to depositing the further fine amount of Rs.5,000/- within a period of three monthsfrom today.
8. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is notdeposited within a period of three months from today, then the original sentencewould come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody or hewould surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence of six months asawarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulation.
9. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information andnecessary compliance.necessary compliance.
12. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
sj
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE