HHHHH CF0000058038 migle - Dwiu.“ kw ,mmml ’ f‘ M /[Lltr j BEFGRE TH? HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT - LABALPUR $7 Criminal AFpeal No. /9L; Dist. Durg M.P. Babulal Kewa‘t s/o Milan KeWat gged about l+1 years Resident w: V111:Sanjari Thana-Dondi Lohara,Dist.Durg M.P. RESPONDENTS : state ofMadhya Pradeéh \ J Qéfensg 3(I)(11) of the ties Act,1989 Qgnvic’tigg 6 months R.I. 8: Prevention of Attreci- 200/- fine in default of payment 1—1/2months / simple. impri senment .Aévacib §§J§Egg§ln9l§_§zli-9£_§¥3§-ggigzg ‘ mmwm ( v @‘T J ? / Balihar s/o Nanaram Thethwar aged about 35 yrs ’» resident of Vill: Sanjar‘i Thana-Doni Lehara 4‘ \ I Kw w 4 > HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Kr BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 1994 Baiihar and anoiher APPELLANTS VERSUS RESPONDENT '- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dat/ed y 02.05.1994 passed by Speciai Judge, Durg in special case No. 19 of 1992 canvicting the accusedlappellanis for'the offence punishable under Seétions 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay line of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one and half month” 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1992 FIR Ex. P-1 Was lodged by the complainant (PW-1) alleging that on 08.3.1992 she had ~ gone to watch T.V. in the house of one Dev Prasad Halwa and when she ’ was returning along with her sister Bhana Kumari (PW—3L on the way the accused/appellant No. 2 Babulal Kewat and one another unknown person tried to stop them but when they proceeded further, the accused/appellant Babulal asked his colleague to catch them then he caught hold of her both the hands. She has further alleged that upon hearing cries of her sister Lala Ram (PW-4) came out from his house and thereafter both the appellants fled away from the spot. 3. So as to h'old the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a b which they denied the e( charge [evened against them innocence and fa!se implication in the case. parties the trial Ceurt has convic as mentioned above. 5t Heard counsei for the part record inciuding the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/a 4‘ After hearing the the accused/appellants Baiihar has not been named m the FIR nor any Test id @ and pieadeci their ted and sentenced ies and perused the materiai avaiiabie on' entihcation parade was held in his respect. it has raise heen argued that the complainant of Atrocities) Act, 1989. date of inCident when a an r3- identification the complainant has identified appellant no.1 . In her cross- examination there appears to be material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant Bhana Bai (PW-3) has made aimost Similar statement as made by the complainant (PW-1) and In her statement also there appears to be material contradictions Lala Ram (PW-4) has not supported prosecution case and has turned hostile Manthir (PW 5) father of the complainant has stated that after hearing cries of his daughter when he reached on the spot he saw his daughter crying and then he was informed about the inCident. 9. From the evidence it is clear that no where it has been stated by the complainant or any of the Witnesses that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe nor there is any documentary eVidence available on record to establish the caste of the comptainant and this fact has also been admitted by the investigating OtFcer Basant Kr Mishra Admittedly the prosecution has not filed any document to show the caste of the complainant whrch is sine qua non for convrcting any person in relation to the offence punishable under the provision of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocmes) Act and therefore conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (Xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocmes) Act being contrary to the prowsrons of law cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aSide. 10. Further the complainant or her sister has even not deposed that the complainant was caught hold by the accused/appellant with an intention to outrage her modesty and on that account also the accysed/appeliants cannot be convicted for the offence under section 3 (,1) (Xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act. d 11. Accordingly the appeal is ailowed. Findings of the Court below V' convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as mentioned above are set — aside Appellants are already on bait Their bail bonds stand discharged The fine amount if depostted by the accused/appellants be refunded to them i Sd/v- ’t"‘ Pritinker Diwaker I ‘ Judge _, a» 77,7 , r ..... a _ a a.