Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1267/2002 of GORELAL Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1267 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
GORELAL, S/O BHAIRU SINGH MEWAD, AGED ABOUT35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KARODIYA ATAA, POLICESTATION MANDI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATIONHARIJAN KALYAN, SEHORE, DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PANKAJ TIWARI - 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.
J U D G M E N T
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 09.08.2002passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore inSpecial Case No.106/2001, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted theappellant for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(5) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- and Section 447 of IPC and sentenced him to deposit fine amount of Rs.250/- with default stipulation.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the incident occurred on06.02.1999 between 02:00 to 03:00 P.M in the afternoon the accused personssaid to have entered into an agricultural land of the complainant and committedoffence in terms of Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The prosecution has arrayed as many as 19 accused persons but thetrial Court has convicted only two accused persons.
4. This Court has gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Nagjiram, PW-3 AnoopSingh, PW-8 Vineet Kumar Jain and other witnesses. This Court has carefullygone through the evidence of the material witnesses and eye-witnesses.
5. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellant are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in provingthe case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross examination ofthe witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing inthe said findings of the trial court that can be said to be erroneous or perverse,warranting interference by this Court in Appellate jurisdiction.
6. Thus, the conviction of the appellant as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld under Section 447 of IPC.
7. So far as conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned the caste status was found provedon the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.This caste certificate Ex.P/2 does not bear any number or date. The certificatedoes not mention that under which entry of Presidential order the caste of thecomplainant is mentioned. The Sarpanch was produced as witness in deposition box as PW-6, but his statement does not inspire any concurrence.Even otherwise Sarpanch is not the competent authority to issue caste statuscertificate to the members of SC and ST community.
8. This Court has held that the caste status of the complainant in Section
3(1)(v) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is to be proved conclusivelybeyond doubt. This Court in the case of Chalaniya Dheemar vs. State ofM.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P. 2006 (4)M.P.L.J. 171 has held that the caste status of the complainant or victim in suchcases has to be conclusively proved by the prosecution. In the present case theprosecution has failed to prove caste status of the complainant. Even admissionof the accused under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be read toprove caste status of the complainant. Accordingly, conviction under Section3(1)(v) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set aside.
9. The appellant was not in jail during trial sentenced for offence underSection 447 of IPC is modified to fine of Rs.5000/- to be paid within a periodof three months from today.
10. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Courtis not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the appellantwould serve jail sentence of 15 days in default and the appellant shall be takeninto custody or he would surrender himself to serve the jail sentence in defaultof payment of fine.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
12. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
13. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.
14. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed anddisposed of.
Vin**
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE