Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/4688/2022 of BHAGWANT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4688 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.BHAGWANT SINGH S/O DARIYAV SINGH, AGEDABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST(AT PRESENT 65 YEARS) VILLAGE UMARDAPOLICE STATION PANDHANA DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH). ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST(AT PRESENT 65 YEARS) VILLAGE UMARDAPOLICE STATION PANDHANA DISTRICTKHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
2.YOGENDRA ALIAS GOLU SINGH S/O BHAGWANTSINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE UMARDA, POLICESTATION PANDHANA, DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH). SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE UMARDA, POLICESTATION PANDHANA, DISTRICT KHANDWA(MADHYA PRADESH).
(BY SHRI SANDEEP MAHAWAR - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHTHE THANA IN CHARGE POLICE STATIONPANDHANA/AJAK DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYAPRADESH). THE THANA IN CHARGE POLICE STATIONPANDHANA/AJAK DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYAPRADESH).
2.KALU BHEEL S/O BULCHAND @ PHULCHANDBHEEL R/O VILLAGE UMARDA, POLICE STATIONPANDHANA, DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYAPRADESH). BHEEL R/O VILLAGE UMARDA, POLICE STATIONPANDHANA, DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYAPRADESH).
(BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e 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
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeof Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, Khandwa in SCATR No. 75/2019, dated 13.04.2022, whereby the learnedSpecial Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(va) ofSC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 323/34 ofIndian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo 6-6 months' RI for eachoffence and fine of Rs. 1000/- for each offence and in default, to furtherundergo 1-1 month's imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that thecomplainant has lodged a false report due to the civil disputes, wherein thejudgment was passed in favour of the appellants. Because of the said civilrivalry, the false report has been lodged. He further submits that except thecomplainant and his wife, no one else has deposed the incident and theirstatements are not believable. It is further argued by the learned counsel for theappellants that injuries were simple in nature and the same may be self inflictedalso. He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of therespondent/State supported the judgment and argued that the witnesses haveduly proved the incident and involvement of the appellants in the offence andprayed that appeal be dismissed.
4. Complainant Kalu Bheel lodged a report against appellant BhagwantSingh Rajput and two others at Police Station Pandhana, District Khandwa,which was registered as Crime No. 467/2019 under Sections 294, 323, 506 and34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCand ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
5. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses, whereas the defence hasexamined two witnesses. PW-1 Zishan Ahmad, Reader of the S.D.O. Office,proved the signature of S.D.O. upon the caste certificate of the complainantEx.P/2. He has not been cross-examined and his testimony has not beenchallenged, therefore, it is proved in the case that the complainant was amember of Scheduled Tribe. It is also not in dispute that the appellants are notthe members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. PW-2 Kalu Bheel andPW-3 Pramila Bai, wife of Kalu, narrated the incident and supported theprosecution case. They accepted in their statements that they were having olddispute with the appellants in respect of the land and in the civil suit, thejudgment was passed in favour of the appellants. However, they denied that dueto the decision in favour of the appellants, they have lodged false report andleveled false allegation. PW-4 Surendra turned hostile and did not support theprosecution case. PW-5 Sunil Ghawari proved registration of the FIR. PW-6Vinod Soni narrated in respect of the investigation. PW-7 Dr. Anurag Soniexplained the injuries sustained by complainant Kalu, however, he accepted thatthe injuries were simple in nature and could be caused due to falling on earth.
6. DW-1 Balwant Singh stated in respect of the judgment of civil case aswell as the reports were lodged earlier against the complainant. DW-2 KesharSingh also produced the copies of the NCR lodged by the accused personsagainst the complainant earlier.
7. After considering the statements of the witnesses, arguments of boththe parties and after perusal of record, it appears that the allegation of abusingthe complainant by caste name could not be proved by any independentevidence and could have been leveled because of the past enmity. Thepossibility of false implication for abusing the complainant by caste name cannot be ruled out and therefore, benefit goes in favour of the appellants andtheir conviction under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside.
8. However, looking to the statements of the witnesses and medicalevidence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of the IndianPenal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 is upheld.
9. The incident took place in the year 2019, there was civil disputebetween the parties, the appellants remained in jail for some period, theprosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants onrecord, no minimum sentence is prescribed either under Section 323 of IPC orunder Section 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989, I deem it proper to reduce the jailsentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have alreadyundergone and accordingly, their jail sentence is reduced to the period alreadyundergone. However, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.1000/- for eachoffence to Rs.2000/- for each offence, each accused. The appellants shalldeposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. Theappellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.
vkt
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE