CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 of 1999 on 26 November 1999

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Codeo f Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.11.1999 passed by theSpecial Judge, Narsinghpur, in Special Case No.18 of 1999, whereby theaccused/appellant Munna @ Amar Prakash has been convicted under Section3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and Sections 363, 323 and342 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-in default R.I. for 2 months, R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault R.I. for 3 months, R.I. for 6 months and R.I. for 6 months respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.09.1996 the appellant reached thehouse of Narendra (PW-2) and forcibly took him in his house and wrongfullyconfined him since his father Sukhlal Katiya (PW-1) took money from theappellant and did not return the same. His father Sukhlal Katiya (PW-1) lodgeda written report at Police Station AJAK, Narsinghpur. Narendra (PW-2), whowas locked in a room of appellant's house flee away from there on 10.10.1996and reached the house of his sister at Village Gotitoriya. The statement ofNarendra (PW-2) was recorded. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filedagainst the appellant.

3. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. To bringhome the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Uponconsideration of the entire evidence, learned trial Judge, for the reasonsassigned in the judgment under challenge, found the appellant guilty for theoffences punishable under Section 3(1)(vi) of the Act of 1989 and Sections363, 323 and 342 of the IPC and awarded punishment as mentioned here-in-above.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds and during thecourse of arguments, pressed on merits inasmuch as there are materialcontradictions and omissions in the statements of material witnesses. No SC/STcertificate has been produced by the prosecution before the trial Court,therefore, no offence under the Act of 1989 could be made out against theappellant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in thecase of Keshri Lodhi Vs. The State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1678/2002decided on 08.09.2006); wherein the judgment passed in the case of BharatSingh Vs. State of M.P., 2006(4) M.P.L.J. 171 and in the case of Shankarlal Vs.State of M.P., 2005(1) M.P.L.J. 449 were taken note of wherein it is held that if

no caste certificate is being produced by the prosecution it cannot be said thatany evidence has been adduced to show that criminal force was used to outragethe modesty of the prosecutrix, who belongs to a scheduled castes community,therefore, the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) ofthe Act of 1989. It is argued that in the present case also as the certificate hasnot been produced by the authorities, therefore, no conviction under the Act of1989 could be made out. The incident has taken place long back on 26.09.1996owing to a money dispute between the father of victim along with appellant.There was no premeditation or intention to cause any injury. It is argued that theappellant has already undergone the custody period of 1 day. He has alreadybeen faced the criminal prosecution for more than 26 years. Therefore, once hisconviction under the Act of 1989 is not made out, his period of sentence maybe reduced to that already undergone. Even the act attributed to the appellantcomes under the purview of minor offence. It is contended that this appeal maybe partly allowed and the sentenced awarded to him may be reduced to theperiod already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed thecontentions and supported the impugned judgment placing reliance upon theevidence which have been adduced before the trial Court. However, he couldnot dispute the fact that no caste certificate has been produced by theprosecution during the trial. Therefore, no conviction under Section 3(1)(vi) ofthe Act of 1989 can be imposed in view of the judgments passed in the case ofKeshri Lodhi (supra), Bharat Singh (supra) and Shankarlal (supra).

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and theevidence available on record coupled with the judgments in the case of Keshri

Lodhi (supra), Bharat Singh (supra) and Shankarlal (supra), this Court is of theconsidered opinion that as the caste certificate is not produced by theprosecution in trial, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful andwhen any doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant,therefore, the appellant could not be convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(vi) of the Act of 1989. However, looking to the evidence available on recordand the act of the appellant, his guilt has been established by the prosecutionbefore the trial Court.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellantfor the offence under Sections 363, 323, and 342 of the IPC is herebymaintained but the term of jail sentence is reduced to the period alreadyundergone by him. However, by invoking the provisions under Section 357 ofthe Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to pay compensation to thecomplainant to do complete justice in the matter. Under these circumstances, heis directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,500/- tobe paid within a period of three months from today while giving an undertakingbefore the trial Court that if he fails to pay Rs.2,500/- then trial Court wouldproceed against him to serve the remaining part of jail sentence.

8. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed but his jailsentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. Theappeal is disposed off with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. Appellantis on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

9. A copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent immediatelyto the court concerned for information and necessary action.

THK

(VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE