IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI th ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1398 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

1. GULJAR S/O DILIP SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT

40 YEARS, KELKACHHA POLICE STATION SAIKHEDA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. AKHILESH KUMAR S/O TRIBUWAN SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KELKACHHA POLICE STATION SAIKHEDA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHHOTE SINGH S/O DILIP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, KELKACHHA POLICE STATION SAIKHEDA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF M.P., THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SAIKHEDA DISTT.

NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT/STATE (BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G E M E N T

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10/5/2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Narsinghppur in Special case No.43/1999, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''SC/ST Act'') and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months was also directed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no caste certificate has been produced by the prosecution neither proved or nor exhibited it. Only oral testimony is there that complainant Jasman (PW/1) is of Chamar caste but no certificate is adduced in this regard. Moreover, this witness in his cross- examination dated 6/5/2000 categorically admitted that the accused persons not beaten him and not called with the name of his caste. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act occurrence of such intention calling by caste is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but evidence is lacking on the point. In this regard, he has also placed reliance in the cases of Chalaniya Dheemar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012 MP 189 and Pillu Alias Pyarelal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR, 2012 MP

1309

3. Per contra, learned counsel the State submits that the accused persons in their examination under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act have admitted that the complainant is related to the caste Chamar therefore, there is no need to prove it further.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and in view of the facts that complainant could not produce any cogent evidence to prove her caste, caste certificate issued by competent authority.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA The conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. In Chalaniya Dheemar (Supra), it is held that no caste certificate of any competent authority to that effect was produced or proved before the Court and, therefore, conviction cannot be maintained under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act in absence of legal evidence in the Court.

6. In Pillu Alias Pyarelal (Supra), it is held that if prosecution fails to prove the caste of victim by any cogent and reliable document issued by the competent authority then mere oral deposition of witness would not deem to be proved.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it is found that though complainant Jasman (PW/1) has stated in his chief examination that he is of caste Chamar but in cross-examination, he admits categorically in para 20 that accused persons have not caused any marpeet with him nor addressed him the word chamra. The accused person did not insult him on the basis of his caste. I