IMPORTANT POINT
Convictions under the SC/ST Act require proof of caste status, and all elements of IPC offenses must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Hirdesh, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 27-9-2003 passed in the Special Case No. 221/2002 by Special Judge, Tikamgarh.

2. By the impugned judgment the trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 509 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months, under section 451 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 250/-, under section 506-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo SI for six months and under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 250/-, with default stipulation.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on 30-6-2002 at 4:00 pm prosecutrix was inside the house on the Bararnda. Her mother Munni Bai and brother Janki were sitting opposite the house under the Neam tree on the platform and elder brother was inside the house. At that time appellant came to her house and shows Rs. 10/- to her and made eye to her and says to go with him. She called her brother and then appellant used filthy language. Thereafter, other relatives of the prosecutrix came and then appellant ran away from the spot.

4. Thereafter, complainant lodged FIR against the accused in police station and police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant before the Magistrate Court. Then it was committed before trial Court.

5. Trial Court framed the charge against the accused which was denied by the accused then and after taking evidence, trial Court found guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted him as above.

6. Appellant challenged the aforesaid findings of sentence and conviction on the ground that there is enmity between appellant and brother of prosecutrix because of post of Jan Sevak Rakshak, which was advertised and the appellant as well as the brother of prosecutrix submitted the application for the post, but appellant was selected due to that reason appellant has been falsely implicated. This fact was not considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that trial Court has failed to see that in the house of the prosecutrix all family members of the prosecutrix were present in the house at that time. Nobody can dare to come to her house with bad intension to do this act.

7. So on the above ground, learned counsel for the appellant pray that impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and pray for acquittal from the charges.

8. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the trial Court judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Now question for determination is that whether trial Court wrongly convicted the accused and whether appeal may be accepted?

10. Leaned counsel of the appellant argued that trial Court committed error to hold that prosecutrix belongs to caste of SC/ST which is covered under such act.

11. On this ground on perusal of the trial Court record it is found that trial Court held in Para 4 of the judgment that prosecutrix has stated that she belongs to scheduled tribe caste and appellant accepted in his cross-examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code that prosecutrix belongs to ST community.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the trial Court prosecutrix had not filed any caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate that prosecutrix belongs to ST community which is covered under the SC/ST Act.

13. In case of Shankarlal vs. State of M. P., 2005(1) M.P.L.J. 449 coordinate Bench of this Court held that prosecution has not led any evidence to the effect that prosecutrix is of the caste which has been included in the list of SC/ST. In the absence of any such evidence this fact cannot be taken for granted that prosecutrix belonged to the SC/ST community. As being one of the essential ingredient, this fact was required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

14. In case of Achhelal vs. State of M.