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. 1176 of 2018 AIYYA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Rajmani Singroul - Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Lokesh Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/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 appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under :

Name and conviction Number of under Sentenced to appellant Section Aiyya and Sanjay 147 of the R.I. for 3 months and to Pay fine of Rs.500 each and in (Appellant IPC default of fine to suffer S.I. for 1 month.

Nos.1 and 2)

325/149 of R.I. for two years on each count & Pay fine of Rs.500/- for the IPC for each count (Total Rs.1500/- each) and in default of fine to three counts. suffer R.I. for 3 months on each count.

427 of the R.I. for 6 months each and to Pay fine of Rs.500 each and IPC in default of fine to suffer R.I. for 3 months.

323/149 of R.I. for 6 months each and to Pay fine of Rs.250/- each the IPC for (Total Rs.1000/- for each accused) and in default of fine to four counts. suffer S.I. for 1 month

452 of the R.I. for two years each and to Pay fine of Rs.1000/- each IPC and in default of fine to suffer R.I. for 3 months.

3(1)(x) of R.I. for 1 year each and to Pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in the SC/ST default of fine to suffer R.I. for 3 months.

Act

2. Learned counsel for the appellants challenges the conviction of the appellants recorded under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 by the Trial Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants 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, Harprasa