CRIMINAL APPEAL 1923 of 2001 on 1 March 2024

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of convictiondated 07.11.2001, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for offenceunder Sections 354 and 323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 andsentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, R.I. for six months and R.I. for sixmonths with fine Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident occurred on 16.04.1998at about 5 pm in the evening. There was wheat crop adjacent to house of theprosecutrix and she saw that cows are grazing the said crop and when she went

to chase away the cows, at that time the accused - appellant came and saidcows are of the appellant and thereafter, he approached the prosecutrix,touched her in inappropriate manner and dragged her, which led to someinjuries to her. When she raised alarm, then other persons in vicinity came andrescued her.

3 . Upon perusal of deposition of prosecutrix (PW/1), Ram Singh(PW/2), Chet Singh (PW/4), Shyamlal (PW/5) and other witnesses finding ofthe trial Court seems to be well reasoned and impeccable and I am unable todisturb the findings in appeal.

4. The Court has convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. However, no caste certificate has been placed on record by prosecution.The trial Court in para 2 of the judgment has recorded that the caste status isundisputed and also in para 8 on the ground that the prosecutrix has orallystated about her caste status. However, it is settled in law that caste status of thecomplainant under Atrocities Act has to be proved conclusively. Kindly see :Chalaniya Dheemar vs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and BharatSingh vs. State of M.P. 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 171.

5. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi)of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. However,conviction under other provisions is maintained.

6. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigatingcircumstances of the case. The appellant was 30 years of age at the time ofincident and today he must be almost 55 years of age. The appellant was on bailduring investigation and trial and he is on suspension of sentence during the pendency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that he hasmisused the terms of bail during all these years. The appellant has alreadyundergone jail sentence of six days. He has been facing investigation and trialand is also contesting the present appeal since last about 22 years.

7. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, I deem it fit toreduce the jail sentence to one already undergone by the appellant and the fineamount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.7,500/-.

8. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today failingwhich sentence originally awarded by the trial Court would come into force andthe appellant will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.

9. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order forinformation and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellant be discharged.

rj

(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE