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. 1833 of 2010 SURESH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Mithilesh Pd.Tripathi - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Satypal Chadar - GA for 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 dated 31.08.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.18/09 by Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989}, Burhanpur whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under :

conviction under Sentenced Fine Section to RI for 6 Rs.500 and in default of fine to suffer R.I.

457 of the IPC months for 1 month RI for 6

354 of the IPC Nil months

3(1)(xi) of the RI for 6 Rs.500 and in default of fine to suffer R.I.

SC/ST Act months for 1 month

2. As per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of 10th and 11th June, 2007 when husband of the prosecutrix went to work at Petrol Pump and she was sleeping in the bed along with her children and her mother-in-law was also sleeping out side the house then at about 1-2 p.m. appellant entered in her house by opening the door out side and covered her mouth and tried to outrage her modesty by closing the door and on her cry some persons came there and assaulted the applicant and thereafter he ran away from the spot and when in the morning her husband came from the service, then she lodged the report of the incident.. On the complaint of the complainant, an offence was registered against the appellants under Sections 354, 456 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC and and under Section 3 (1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1989") and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that there are contradictions and omissions and also improvement in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The appellant has not caused any injury to the prosecutrix, therefore, no offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC has been made out. The only charge against the appellant is that he has opened the door outside of the house. The charge has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses, therefore, no offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC is made out against the appellant. No ingredients of Sections 457 and 354 of IPC are attracted in the present case. It is also submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that caste certificate of complainant was issued by an incompetent authority and there was no proof that the complainant belonging to the said caste and, therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) 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 Atrocit