Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2685/2005 of OMPRAKASH CHANDROL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2685 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
OMPRAKASH CHANDROL S/O HARI PRASADCHANDROL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:SALESMAN, R/O VILL. JANTIPUR, BINAIKA,P.S.MANDLA, TEH. & DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJAY PATEL - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH A.J.K.DINDORI, DISTT.DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS.SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
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.
J U D G E M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23/12/2005passed by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No. 18/2005, whereby, theappellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short "the Act") and Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 6 months respectively withdefault stipulation.
2. The incident relating to molestation in the name of caste was reported to the
Police Station A.J.K. Dindori, Distt. Dindori, where F.I.R. (Ex.P/13) wasregistered on Crime No.1/2005 under Section 354 of the IPC and 3(1)(xi) of theAct. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trialCourt vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant asmentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the finding of conviction and sentence submits that learned trial Court failed to notice this fact that theoffence under the SC/ST Act caste of the prosecutrix must be proved withcogent documentary evidence. There are serious anomalies, contradictions andomissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Hence, prays foracquittal. In the alternative limb of prayer he submits that during trial appellanthas remained in custody from 13/1/2005 to 18/1/2005 i.e. 5 days. The incidenttook place near about 19 years back. He has no criminal antecedents, therefore,taking lenient view jail sentence may be reduced to the period alreadyundergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and praysfor dismissal of this appeal stating that it is devoid of merits.for 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. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the caste certificate (Ex.P/3)has not been issued by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Harratoal which had noauthority to issue that document.
7. In Chalaniya Dheemar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012
MP 189 and Pillu Alias Pyarelal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR2012 MP 1309, it has been specifically held by coordinate Bench of this Courtthat if caste of victim is not proved by cogent and reliable document issued bythe competent authority, then mere oral deposition of witness would not be sufficient to prove the caste certificate.
8. In such circumstances, when the caste of the prosecutrix has not beenproved it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act hasbeen proved by the prosecution. Thus, learned trial committed serious error offact and law in recording the conviction of appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) ofthe Act which is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the abovecharge.
9. The evidence adduced in support of the offence u/s. 354 of the IPC isfound to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any materialinfirmity and anomaly. The testimony of prosecutrix (PW/1) stands dulycorroborated with first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by her, therefore,finding of conviction cannot be interfered and is hereby affirmed.
10. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellantappears to be reasonable. The incident took place more than 19 years back.The appellant faced trial and appeal during this long period of time. No criminalantecedents are attributed to the appellant, therefore, the period of jail sentencedeserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction for theoffence under Section 354 of the IPC is affirmed, therefore, the period of jailsentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. Since theconviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act has been set aside, therefore, thefine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant for this offence, will be refundedback to him by learned trial Court. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond andpersonal bond stand discharged.
12. 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.
13. C.C. as per rules.
m/-
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE