^ ..^...^—-^^..^^ ^^ --^^ Q ^' ?f IN TnE H1GH COUliT CF MADllYA PiiADHSH M JABALPUI:l' ^e.Bench (CrirtUn '. Appeal No. ^S~| ofi993 • .<. ;; • L/r AppELLArW ACCUSED. Shri Shankar 'Lai .Shriv.astava 3 ,S/o Shri Laxman Praaad 'aged .about 57 years/Govt. Primary / . __^- School teachei/!and agriculturisi'res-r'denT^of Village Jhalmala,"JPolicQ Station & Teh. Balod, pistt.-Durg. / . . . ' : - Versu$, RESPOIC)ENT : The State of i^P ^ through Police Stafion, Balod, Dist-t. Durg. y ' .. Conviction under sec'cion'3 (l) ()C) of. the Scheduled Caste and •Schedul.ed Tribe(Prevention of/Attrocities.) Ac'fc^i9S9'. ^ ' ^ • '. ' ' ^!:rl£iiS£' : Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and fine of ^iw^ Hs » i gOOO/- on-ii .default Simp le Imprisonment., for y- ll- months<. ^' .. . 1_. .'._..... ' ! . QRjJVlINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374" OR CQDE OF CRII.ll iL.PR03£D'u£lE v^ £^l±£;i§I^j£^^iIi^2±^^ ' Jl^-2iiil,Ji^»JHU^^^ ^l§±L.NytflJ^i_.34/i99i'^ ' b BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 12:55:30 +0530 HICtH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR SB : HON>BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITIKKER DIWAKER CR.A.NO. 881/1993 K^- APPELLAWT RESPONDBNT versus Shri Sliankar Lal Shrivastava State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Surul Sahu, counsel for the appeUant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L, for the State. APPLICATIOII U/8 374 (2) OF THE CR.P.C. JUDGMIBNT (31.03.2010J The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.8,93 passed by the Special JudgCy Durg m Special Case No. 34/91 convictmg the accused/appeUaot for fhe offence piinishable under Section 3(l)(x) of fhe Scheduled Caste & ^heduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtorocities) Act aad sentenciag him. to imdergo simple imprisoninent for six inonfhs aad to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 ia detault of J&ae to furfher ^indergo simple imprisonment for one and hatfnionths. 2. Brief facts of the case are ftiat on 21. 10.91, FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by fhe comiplainant Dhaa Sai (P.W.-l) allegmg ia it fhat on fhe same day when he had gone for graziag the catUe, accused/appeUant had abused hioi by usiag filftiy Imiguage and fhen had pushed him. This mcident has been witaessed by Punu Rain, Dayalu & Sumitra Bai who were workmg m fhe nearby field. 3. In support of its case, fhe prosecution has exassuned seven witoaesses. Statement of fhe accused/appellaat was also recorded uiider Section 313 ofthe Code ofCrmiio.al Procedure ia which he denied fhe charges leveUed agaiast hixa aad pleaded his innocence ^^ss^^ and false unplication ia fhe case. This apart two defence witaesses have also been examiaed by fheni ia support of fheir case. 4. After hearing fhe parties, the trial Court has convicted fhe accused/appeUaat for the offence as aforementioned. Hence this appeal, 5. Contention of fhie coiiasel for tiie appeUant is that fhie prosecution has fafled to adduce cogent aad rcMable evidence fhat fhe conxplaiiiant Dhaa Sai (P.W,-7) belongs to Schedixled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communily, Even m the Court statement the coiaplaiaant has not deposed that he belongs to Scheduled Ca^te or Scheduled Tribe. He fdrther submits fhat fhe ofher witiiesses have also not deposed fhat fhe coxxiplaiaant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe aad subinits that wifhout there being any evidence on record, the learaed trial Court has held fhat the coiaplamaat belongs to a particular caste aad has convicted fhe accused/appeUant, He furfher submits that fhe prosecution has not filed any certificate issued by fhe competent aufhorily to prove that fhe caste of the comiplaixiant falls withia the category of scheduled Caste. The fiUng of caste certt&cate is siae qua non for provmg fhe case iiader fhe provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act fhereforc fhe appeUant caanot be convicted for fhe offence under the provisions of the said Act. 6. On fhe other haad counsel for fhe State supported fhe iiapugned judgnient, however, he admits tliat prosecution has not filed auy docuiaent showmig tihie caste of tihie coniplainaat, 7, I have heard coiinsel for fbe parties and penised tibie material available on record. Section 3 (l)(x) of tfae SC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act reads as nnder: 3. Punisltmeats foy offeiices of Atorocities-(l) Whoever, not beiag a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- s^. %. /y'"^\ V"^ (x) mtentionalty nisults or mtimidate^ wifh iatent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe ia aay place witliin fhe public view; Barc penisal of the above section niakes it clear fhat there has to be iatentioa on the part of fhe person who abuses fhe person offhe said caste, 8. In the case ia hand, fhere is no such evidence available on record. Furthennore, even fhe complamaat had not deposed fhat he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution has also not adduced any cogent evidence to bring fhe present ca8e wifhixi fhe ambit ofSection 3(l)(x) ofthe SC/ST (Prcvention ofAtrocities) Act. Even m fhe court statement, fhe complai&aat had not deposed fhat he was abused by fhe accused/appellaiit ia a filthy laaguage by his caste, Adxaittedly, the prosecution has not filed aoy docunxent to show fhe caste offhe complamaxit which is sine qua rwn for convictmg aay person ia relation to fhe offence pertaimng to fhe provision of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act It is a setded legal position that fhe production of relevant docuinent regarding fhe caste of the comiplam.axit is uecessaiy to estabMsh fhe ofifence under fhe provisions of Prcvention of Atrocities Act. It is fhus very clear that fhe conviction of fhe appeUant under Sectibn 3(1)(10) of fhe Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocitites) Act is not ia accordance wifh law therefore fhe samie is set aside, Even fhe so called eyewitaess has also not fuUy supported fhe case of fhe prosecution, Accoiidiagly^ tfae appeal is allowed, impugned judgiaent dated 12.8,93 is hereby set aside, The appeUaat is on baU, his bail borals staad discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge