CRIMINAL APPEAL 73/2003 on 8 August 2003

JUDGEMENT

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeo f Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of conviction and order ofsentence passed by the Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No. 73/2003,dated 14.12.2004, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted theappellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SCand ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo 6months' RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo 2 months' RIfor offence under Section 3(1)(x) Act of 1989 and 3 months RI for Section 323of IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that thecomplainant has lodged a false report. It is submitted that prosecution has failedto prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He prayed for acquittal of theappellant.

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 appellant in the offence andprayed that appeal be dismissed.

4. After considering the statements of the witnesses, arguments of boththe parties and after perusal of record, it appears that FIR was lodged on02.08.2003 by Kashiram Gond against the present appellant at Police StationBijadandi, District Mandla, registered as Crime No. 98/2003, under Sections294, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after investigation, charge-sheet hasbeen filed.

5. Prosecution examined four witnesses. However, defence hasexamined two witnesses. PW-1 Kashiram narrated the incident and involvementof the appellant, however, he has not stated anything in respect of insulting himby taking name of his caste. Similarly, PW-2 Dassu Lal Marawi has not statedanything in respect of insulting the complainant by taking the name of his caste.They have stated in respect of the injuries caused to the complainant. PW-4 Dr.Jitendra Kumar Jain explained the injuries, however, accepted that injuries weresimple in nature. The learned Special Judge by judgment dated 14.12.2004convicted the appellant under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and Section3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)

(x) of the Act of 1989 cannot be sustained as no caste certificate of thecomplainant was proved during trial and the complainant and witness did notstate anything in respect of insulting the complainant by taking the name of hiscaste by the appellant. Resultantly, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of theAct of 1989 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the chargepunishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. However, convictionunder Section 323 of IPC is upheld. Sufficient material is available against theappellant to prove the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 ofIPC.

5. In view of the fact that the incident happened in the year 2003, theprosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant onrecord, appellant remained in jail from 08.08.2003 to 11.08.2003, no minimumsentence is prescribed under Section 323 of IPC, I deem it proper to reduce thejail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the period which he has alreadyundergone and accordingly, jail sentence is reduced to the period alreadyundergone. However, a fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed upon the appellant forcommission of offence under Section 323 of IPC. The appellant shall depositthe fine amount within a period of two months from today. The appellant is onbail, his personal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appealis partly allowed.

6. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of thejudgment.

(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE