Conviction under the SC/ST Act requires a valid caste certificate; absence of such certificate invalidates the conviction.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 25.01.2008 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , Balaghat in S.C No.42/2007, whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and under section 3 (1) (x) of SC ST Act and have been sentenced to undergo 6 months RI each and with fine of Rs.500/-each with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story in brief is as follows:-

2. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 325 and alternately under section 325/34 of IPC , under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC ST Act and alternately under section 294, under section 506 of IPC and read over the same to appellants and they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After completion of prosecution evidence, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. and therein they denied the prosecution story and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. After assessing and examining the evidence, learned trial court acquitted the appellant for the offence under sections 294 and 506 IPC but convicted and sentenced them under Section 325/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the instant case, parties have compromised the matter and factum of compromise has been verified by the Registrar (J-II) of this Court. The offence under Section 325/34 is compoundable with permission of this Court, therefore the appellants be acquitted under Section 325/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise filed in the case. Further, it is also urged that in the instant case, no caste certificate issued by the competent authority has been filed in the case. The Tahsildar, who has issued the caste certificate is not competent to issue the same, therefore the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act. On above grounds the appeal be allowed and the appellants be CRA-334-2008 acquitted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and have perused/examined record of the trial Court and grounds taken by appellants/accused persons in the appeal memo minutely and carefully.

6. So far as appellants’ conviction under Section 325/34 of IPC is concerned, offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellants as well as the complainant have filed compromise applications under Section 320(2) and 320(2)(5) of Cr.P.C. The factum of compromise has been verified by the Registrar (J-II) of this Court and in the report submitted by the Registrar (J-II), it is mentioned that he has verified the factum of compromise and as per his opinion, the compromise entered between the parties is genuine and bonafide .

9. So far as appellants’ conviction under Section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act is concerned, perusal of para 6 to 10 of impugned judgement reveals that trial Court has convicted appellants under Section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST Act on the basis of oral depositions of prosecution witnesses as well as admission made by the appellants in their examination under Section 313 of CR.P.C. Perusal of record of the case reveals that there is no caste certificate on record. In this Court’s considered opinion, in absence of any caste certificate issued by Competent Authority, appellants cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act only on the basis of oral testimonies and appellants admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In view of above, appellants are acquitted of charge under Section 3 (1) (X) of

8. In view of above, the compromise applications filed by the appellants as well as complainant are allowed and appellants are acquitted of offence CRA-334-2008 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

10. In view of above mentioned facts and