Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1581/2003 of MANIRAM Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAINON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1581 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1.MANIRAM, S/O DEENANATH AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, R/O ANANTPURA NEW COLONY,DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DEEPAK S/O BHAIYALAL KUSHWAHA, AGEDABOUT 30 YEARS, BHAGAT SINGH COLONY DIST.TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE)
.....APPELLANTS
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AATMARAM BAIN - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of convictiondated 17.09.2003, whereby the present appellants have been convicted foroffence under Sections 323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 andsentenced to undergo S.I. for four months, S.I. for six months with fine Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that incident occurred on 29.11.1998
when the present appellants have hurled caste basis abuses to complainantChenka Prasad at public place and also caused simple hurt to the said person.The trial court has acquitted the appellants under Section 294 and 506-B of IPCand convicted the appellants for offence as mentioned above in para 1.
3 . Upon perusal of deposition of Chenka Prasad (PW/1), Narayan(PW/2), Dr. R.S. Rana (PW/3), and other witnesses, the finding of the trialcourt about conviction under Section 323 of IPC is affirmed.
5. However, the finding so far as Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castesand the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, theprosecution has not produced any caste certificate of the complainant onrecord. It is well settled in law that caste status of the complainant underAtrocities Act has to be proved conclusively. Kindly see : ChalaniyaDheemar vs. State of M.P. [I.L.R. 2012 M.P. 189] and Bharat Singh vs.State of M.P. 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 171.
6. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the caste statusof the complainant, hence, the appellants are acquitted for the offence underSection 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989. His conviction under Sections under Section 323 ofthe I.P.C. is upheld.
7. The sentence needs to be modified looking to the mitigatingcircumstances of the case. The case is of the year 1998 and the appellants wereon bail during investigation and trial and they are on suspension of sentenceduring the pendency of present appeal. There is nothing on record to suggestthat they have misused the terms of bail during all these years. They have beenfacing investigation and trial and is also contesting the present appeal since lastabout 20 years. Appellant No. 2 has undergone 27 days of jail custody.
8. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant No. 2 is reduced to alreadyundergone and fine amount enhanced to Rs.5000/-. The sentence of appellantNo. 1 is reduced to fine of Rs. 7500/-
9. Let the fine amount be paid within three months from today failingwhich sentence originally awarded by the trial Court would come into force andthe appellants will be taken into custody to serve out the remaining jailsentence.
10. Let record of the trial court be sent along with copy of this order forinformation and necessary action. Bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.
MISHRA
(VIVEK JAIN)JUDGE