Conviction under POA Act requires proof of complainant's caste status and intent to humiliate, which was not established.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2005 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 44/2004 (State of MP v. Santosh Kumar Malakar) by Special Judge the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Khandwa (hereinafter referred to as POA Act) whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine further 15 days S.I. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1-1 month respectively for offence under S.323 and S.506(B) of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It is admitted that complainant / injured and appellant have entered into compromise before this Court as result whereof appellant has been acquitted of offence under S.323 and S.506(B) of IPC vide order dated 23.03.2022. This judgment is being passed with regard to the conviction and sentence awarded under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act.

3. The prosecution story as alleged is that on 03.10.2004 at around 2:30 pm in the weekly market at Narmda Nagar, Dev Karan (PW - 3) along with Rajendra Chouhan (PW - 6) was realizing money from the shops installed there. When they reached on the Santosh's shop and gave him Rs. 5 receipt for panchayat, Santosh Kumar Malakar uttered filthy word related to mother and sister and caught hold collar of his shirt and slapped him. He further stated that Balai Chamar never come on my shop for realization of money. Matter was pacified by Prem Lal (PW - 4) and Sunil (PW - 5). He also threatened him to kill. Same day, Dev Karan (PW - 3) lodged an FIR in police station Narmda Nagar Khandawa at FIR No. 255/04 for commission of offences under S.323, S.294, S.506 of IPC and 3(1)(10) of the POA Act.

4. On filing of charge sheet before the JMFC Khandwa it was committed to the Court of Special Judge Khandwa. The charges were framed for the offences under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act and 323 and 506 (B) of IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and took a defence of false implication. The trial Court recorded the finding proving the charge under S.323, S.506(B) of IPC and 3(1)(10) of the POA Act.

5. Shri Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of conviction for the charge under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act and submitted that prosecution by unimpeachable evidence has failed to prove that the complainant Dev Karan belongs to scheduled caste community. Mere testimony of the complainant is not sufficient to prove him the members of scheduled caste community. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Harlal v. State of MP ILR (2013) MP 1440 : (AIROnline 2013 MP 30) and Ashok and others v. State of M.P. ILR (2015) MP 2475 : (AIROnline 2015 MP 43) and urged that in the absence of certificate of a scheduled caste to which complainant belongs, the conviction cannot be allowed to stand. He has therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside, allowing this appeal.

6. Per contra Shri Ramji Lal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent / State has submitted that that as per the statement of of Dev Karan (PW - 3), it is clear that he is a member of Balai sub caste which falls within ''Chamar'' caste. No effective cross - examination has been made by the defence on the said testimony, however, relying upon such testimony he has been rightly convicted under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act.

7. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties it is to be examined that to prove the charge under S.3(1)(10) of the POA Act, the sufficient material is available on the record or not . In this context the definition