Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1875/2001 of SHRI RAM 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1875 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
SHRI RAM, SON OF RADHEYSHAM, AGED ABOUT 35YEAR S , OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O- VILLSAWALIKHEDA P.S. KHALWA DISTT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SAMR SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
ANDTHE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE P.S. KHALWA DISTT KHANDWA
(BY MS. SHANTI 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.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08/11/2001passed by Special & Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Special CaseNo. 31/2001, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence underSection 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6months and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to the offence was reported to the P.S. Khalwadistrict Khandwa where FIR was registered on Crime No. 32/2001 underSection 254, 506 and 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Courtvide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentionedherein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of convictionand sentence submits that learned trial Court failed to notice that proof of casteis must in offences relating to SC/ST Act. In this case, no document relating tothe caste of the prosecutrix has been placed on record in proof, therefore,conviction recorded under Section 3(1) (xi) is bad in law. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays for acquittal. In alternative limb of the prayer hesubmits that the incident took place more than 22 years back. No criminalantecedents have been brought on record, therefore, taking lenient view, jailsentence may be reduced suitably.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. Perused the impugned judgment. It has not been mentioned that howlearned trial Court came to the conclusion that complainant belongs to thescheduled castes or scheduled tribes community. Though, it has come in thetestimony of prosecutrix (PW-2) and her husband Roop Singh (PW-3) thatthey belong to Korku caste but this is a caste coming under scheduled tribe hasnot been proved by the cogent documentay evidence on record.
7. In Chalaniya Dheemar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012
MP 189and Pillu Alias Pyarelal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR2012 MP 1309, coordinate Bench of this Court held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of the victim by any cogent and reliable documentary evidenceissued by the competent authority, then mere oral deposition of witness wouldnot be sufficient to prove the caste. Accordingly, in absence of proof of casteof the prosecutrix finding of the convictin recorded by the learned trial Courtunder Section 3(1) (xi) is perverse and deserves to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellantunder Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act is set aside. The appellant is acquittedof the above charges. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant asimposed by the trial Court will be refunded back to him. The appellant is onbail. His bail bond and personal bond stand discharged.
9. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment ofthis Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
C.C. as per rules.
K.S.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE