IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1204 of 2008 DILIP SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Shashank Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER With consent, arguments heard finally.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special Sessions Trial No.144/2004 (State of MP Vs. Dilip Singh) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution story, the complainant-Gayadeen Ahirwar (PW-1) belongs to Ahirwar caste which comes under scheduled caste whereas appellant-accused does not belong to SC or ST category. On 05.05.2004, when the complainant who was working as an agent of the Election Both No.125; at that time, accused/Dilip Singh came there and used filthy language and also assaulted him. The report was lodged to the police upon which crime was registered and investigation was held. In the trial, that followed after the filing of charge-sheet, the impugned judgment was passed and the accused was convicted as well as sentenced as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that caste certificate of complainant was issued by an incompetent authority and there was no proof of the complainant belonging to the said caste and, therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. To bolster his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chalaniya Dheemar v. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR 2012 MP 189, wherein it is held that no 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. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pillu @ Pyarelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ILR 2012 MP 1309 wherein 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. Other grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the finding and sentence recorded by the Court below are erroneous on law and facts; there was no evidence to prove that the complainant belonged to scheduled caste category; the conviction was based solely upon her testimony; the statements of prosecution witnesses suffered with material contradictions, omissions and improvements. On these facts, it was claimed that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case, still the trial court passed the impugned judgment against the accused which should be set aside and the accused should be acquitted for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Sections 323, 506 of IPC by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 i.e. almost 21 years ago. It is submitted that appellant was in custody for five days during trial and after post conviction, he has served out the jail sentence from the date of