Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2698/1999 of MALAN SINGH Vs STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2698 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
MALAN SINGH S/O DEV CHAND KACHHI AGED ABOUT22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHARPAHADI, POLICESTATION AND TAHSIL BERASIA, DISTRICT BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI KHALID NOOR - ADVOCATE )
.....APPELLANT
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SCHEDULE CASTE ANDSCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE, BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
(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 aged the judgment and order dated 16.09.1999passed by Special Judge (Atrocities)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, inSpecial Case No. 20/99 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for theoffence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short "Act") and has been sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months andfine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
2. The incident relating to molestation of the prosecutrix was reported to thePolice Station AJK Bhopal where it was registered on Crime No. 1/99 under
Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Act. After completion ofinvestigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court vide impugnedjudgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction andsentence submits that the learned trial Court ignored serious anomalies,contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnessesand also ignored the testimony of defence witnesses and prays for acquittal. Inthe alternative limb of prayer he submits that appellant has falsely beenimplicated on the ground of animosity. Incident allegedly occurred long back on08.01.1999. Appellant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, taking lenient viewjail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and praysfor dismissal of this appeal stating that it is devoid of merits.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offenceu/s. 3(1)(xi) of the Act is full of contradictions and omissions. There is ampleevidence that prosecutrix was grazing her goat in the field of the appellant forwhich he objected.Being aggrieved by the objectionon concocted story, theFIR was lodged. Though, Ram Kishore (PW-2) who is real uncle of theprosecutrix tried to support the prosecution but the other eye witness Halkuram(PW-3) does not support the prosecution story as reported to the policestation. The learned trial Court without assigning any reason discarded thetestimony of Balkishan (DW-1) and Mokam Singh (DW-2) who in very clearterms deposed that the prosecutrix was grazing her goat in the field of theappellant. On account of the objection raised by the appellant, false report waslodged. Thus, looking to the evidence in its entirety available on record, learned trial Court committed serious error of fact and law in recording the convictionof the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. This finding does not findapproval of this Court and is hereby set aside. Acquitting the appellant fromthe above charges.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Fine amount if deposited by theappellant will be refunded back to him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bondand personal bond of stand discharged.
8. Let record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment of this Court forthwith be sent back for compliance and necessary action.
9. C.C. as per rules.
L.R.
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2023.12.29 16:29:52 +05'30'
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE