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. 2058 of 2003 NARENDRA NATH Versus THE STATE OF M.P.

Appearance:

Shri Sunil Sakle - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Ankur Kashyap - Advocate for complainant.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2003 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.105/2001 whereby the appellant was punished for the offences under section 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and under section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentenced to undergo R.I for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506-B of IPC read with Section 3(1) (10) SC/ST and sentenced to undergo R.I for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution story on 12.02.2001 the prosecutrix lodged a report that on 11.02.2001 at about 5.00 PM when she was sitting in front of her house at that time appellant came there and asked about her father. When she told her father is not at home, the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix raised alarm, the appellant abused her by her caste and fled away. 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)(11) and Section 3(1)(10) 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 Coordinate 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 Coordinate 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 prosecutrix 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; there was love relations between the prosecutrix and the accused. 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.

4. State has opposed the present appeal claiming that the conviction as well as sentence passed against the accused do not require any interference by this appellate court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. After perusal of the record, it reveals that the caste certificate was issued by the Sarpanch of the village who was admittedly not a competent authority to issue caste certificate and no competent caste