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

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1952 of 2018 RAMCHANDRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Wakeel Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajmani Singroul - Advocate for the respondent No.2/Complainant Shri Lokesh Jain - G.A. for the respondent No.1/State.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 415 of B.N.S.S. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 31.01.2018 in Special Sessions Trial No.49/2011 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 147, 325/149 (on three counts), 323/149 (on four counts), 452, 427 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo R.I. for 3 months, 2 years, 6 months, 2 years, 6 months, 1 year respectively, and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, 500/- , 250/-, 1000/-, 500/- and

500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 by the Trial Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no proof that the complainant belonging to the S.C. 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 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. There was no evidence to prove that the complainant belonged to scheduled caste category; the conviction was based solely upon the testimony of complainant; the statements of prosecution witnesses suffered with material contradictions, omissions and improvements. On these facts, it is prayed that the impugned judgment against the accused so far as it relates to offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 be set aside and the accused be acquitted.

3. 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.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it reveals that a letter dated 24.11.2010 has been written by the S.D.O. (Revenue), Sagar to the S.P., Sagar (M.P.), on the basis of report of the Tehsildar in the letter form, wherein it is mentioned that injured Sunil, Susheel, Harprasad, Sohagrani, Sunita belong to S.C. community. No caste certificate has been issued by the SDO. On the basis of this information (Ex.P/1), prosecution failed to prove that Sunil, Susheel, Harprasad, Sohagrani, Sunita belong to S.C. community. Therefore offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not proved. It is a settled position of law that in the absence of the caste being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction cannot be upheld under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

6. The learned trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled