SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(MP) 1248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U. C. Maheshwari J.
Pappu @ Narendra Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 311 of 1996
Decided On : 20-06-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Surendra Singh,Manish Mishra
For the Respondent: Umesh Pandey

The prosecution must prove all material facts of the case by cogent and admissible evidence.

Headnote:

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes - Conviction under section 3(1)(x) of the Act - [Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] - [Section 3(1)(x)] - The court found that the caste certificate of the complainant was not proved, and the prosecution failed to establish the caste of the complainant covered under the Act. The court also noted the lack of supporting evidence from independent witnesses and the suspicious nature of the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, based on an incident where the complainant was allegedly abused and beaten by the appellants due to a dispute over grazing animals on the complainant's field.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the caste certificate of the complainant was not proved, and the prosecution failed to establish the caste of the complainant covered under the Act. The court also noted the lack of supporting evidence from independent witnesses and the suspicious nature of the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Issues: The issues revolved around the proof of the complainant's caste covered under the Act, the lack of supporting evidence from independent witnesses, and the suspicious nature of the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution is duty bound to prove all material facts of the case by cogent and admissible evidence. The failure to prove the caste of the complainant and the lack of supporting evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted from the charge of section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The bail bonds of the appellants were discharged, and the amount of fine, if deposited, was to be refunded to the appellants after proper verification.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants/accused have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-1-1996 passed by Special Judge (Constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (In short 'the Act'), Panna, convicting and sentencing to each of them for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act with a direction to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of depositing the same, further three months simple imprisonment.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 18-9-1993, at about 10.30 in the morning the complainant Mulayam Kori (PW-1) went to his field and saw that the animals of appellant No. 1 under supervision of him are grazing his crops. On asking in this regard from the appellant No. l on which, both the appellants taking the name of his caste 'Kuriya' covered under the Act abused him with filthy languages and said that their animals will do this thing. Thereafter, when he was going to village to inform the other persons in this regard then, on the way in front of the house of Lakhan Choubey, again he was intercepted and abused with filthy languages by the appellants and in continuation of it he was subjected to beating with fists and kicks by them. The witnesses Purushottam Chandpula (PW-2) and Guddu Yadav (PW-4) came there and rescued him. Subsequently, on dated 8-10-1993, a report in writing of this incident was given by him to the Police Station Harijan Kalyan Thana, Panna, on which vide dated 9-10-1993 the Crime No. 25/93, was registered against the appellants for the offences of sections 341, 294, 506, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Prior to registration of the offence, the complainant Mulayam was sent to hospital on 8-10-1993 where after his medical examination the MLC report Ex.P./10 was prepared. On advising the X-ray of some injuries, the same was carried out in which no bony injury was found. After holding the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 341, 294, 506, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) (x) of the Act.

3. On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of section 3(1) (x) of the Act was framed against the appellants. They abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same, the appellants were held guilty for the abovementioned offence and punished with the sentence as mentioned above. On which, the appellants have come to this Court with this appeal.

4. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment argued that on proper appreciation of the available evidence, the appellants ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court, but under the wrong premises they have been convicted. In continuation by referring the deposition of Dr. G. P. Singh (PW-7), he said that according to this witness, the medical examination of the complainant was carried out on 8-10-1993 before registration of the offence and the MLC report (Ex.P.10) was prepared. According to such MLC, four contusions were found on the person of the complainant. Out of them, two contusions were found of bluish red colour and as per opinion of the Doctor, the stated injuries were sustained by the victim within 48 hours from the time of his medical examination. In the light of this fact if the case is examined then as per case of the prosecution the alleged incident was happened on dated 18-9-1993 and the MLC was prepared on 8-10-1993 just after near about 20 days, thus the alleged injuries could not be connected with the alleged incident and in such premises, the case of the prosecution is apparently on false pretext. He further said that the original First Information Report given by the complainant in writing to the Police on 8-10-1993, has neither been proved nor marked the exhibit on record. In the lack of proving the original F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top