w? HM u: mm“ w Ey $¥J§W“ " mmwiF..f‘?'7 ‘ an ¥ /lgg;lz N TH” qTF‘H COURT OT MAUHX“ PRAUE H A- JABALPUR cRI mm AppmL 1x0 ?)7[ 0“ 1994. L L . App &LA m._1. Banshi/éon of 24 years 0/ v . In Jall Ha‘numan Prasad aged about Aansukblal 4011 o; aanshlla’i, aced about 23' years ./ Both res1den'Ls of Paradeshl ”howk Ralnnaqar 3&pela, P S Sapela, Djrg / Ver su s R ESPONDENT' mww S5 ,,,,,,,’;L v ivrca‘? gb&§‘ 2 aL‘...;:lL:fw .. ihe State of Madhya Pradesh throucxh P o Sapela Burg. ‘Wm u/s 3E1/(11) of the 6 months R I and mne of fSC/“t Atroc1t1es) Preventlon Act 1909 of Rs I 1000/— 1n demult 1‘ mcmths , s Em ms F. APPEAL UNDFR SPCTION 37a o THE pom 0*: Clam PRocmmp TRIAL 6‘ 7 /¢II@Mai@azmw I " M @@3 HEGH COHR? GE? i33-§§-§AT”T§$G,A$E$€ $33“ aiLAS?%.§R i§%mm ME”, Jagst'aae ?§§im§<gf §3§wak§srg CRMWJ‘AL M3P§AL Na‘ 3% an? 1§gé Bamhi am anoir AWELLAMTg RES?G:\§@ENT Shae o; 1V *va 9r9desh ‘ 1 Shir? Ragms’n Smg" Baghe§ Cewmei fer ihe ccused/appeiiaA Sa Snr VveK Qrama at YO‘ we rewmd h CRIMENAL £P?tAL i§$§i3t§ $¢£§Ti m .;?£; ‘fHE {KEBE i3? m PW h?E€G$E3§JRE g Lag c; M Egg; {524.5a2mm ‘ ¢ The p¥e5erzt ‘apfaea ariSes Gut of ii. e jmigmem am ama? dazed 3O (4" wwx vasged bi! Spaciaé Judge, Dug m Sgeciai‘Cage i‘xio. 35i19g‘2 ohvmtmg tm gccusw/appeians under $e Schedmed Qaste and S‘hedu e Hba (We/eh Hm Q’ Masha: > 198g (fos' short ‘the ACE} and $emammg mam ts} u we Qf Rs. 1600 n dgfau a? é gwaymsan: of fine is furiher underga 31mpig impa'isanmené for one and haif months 7 The bi‘iaf facis cf the case are that om 21331992 wri‘itan repm‘i (EX. P4} was iodged by Kousaiendva Prasad Singh (PW—4), i‘ne I Hegdmaaef m‘ Lak‘aharati Middie School; Rami’lage; aiieging m 2?. iha‘i i‘ne prowcutrix (PW-f) is wmkjng in hi$ 30mm ‘és a egon and OH i933 1992 a? 'abnut 4 p m an er‘ We was “aKma 0am at the him:— m!‘ siiuated wimm s$hoe$ premésaa he acc:.1sedlappe§§ams came them W32” an ‘intez’IEm fa f$$homur Eta? and i‘ney teased, hara3$ed; mi$behavad, aisb aaswuiied ‘rw and madra an aimm‘pi to puii her wt knowing ihat she was not 1L4 w meswd as sn wag bathma Based 0n ibis written repart, rF’ {FX 97‘ wak registemd agamat *he accusM/abpehauts on J p3x04.1 992 aad unaflan was med an 05051 9‘32. M; m priwameni for s§x menths aw gay m ¢ : x i prosecution has examingd T14 witnewes $taiemem$ :3? :‘e assu$ed!a;opeiiants were aisa recarded undefSssiisn 3‘1 3 a?‘ ihe Qm‘a 0f Cr‘imma§ Procedure in whmh they §en§ed the chaa'ge ievei§ed agaiast them and pieaded their immense and faige implisation in the case: A ‘ a}: ihe impugned judgment ihe Earned tria‘i Cm" has camlictad ihe aocdsed/appeiianm far me affence as men'iwmad above. Hence the present apgeai. F. J. o. i Counsel far the acCUSeclV/a$pe¥iani$ sagbmits ’{hai ihe appeiiawts have been faiseiy imeiicated §§me§y eeeause ihe presecumx beioegs to a earticijé: caste ‘Sai‘nami" oiherwiee m3 offeece whaieoever is made eut i against them. He fuz’t‘ner submiis that a miner diepute between the appellanis and i‘ne prosecuirix has been exaggerated just t0 give i’ne serious look into ihe matter. 6. 3 On ihe other hand supporting the impugned Quagment oounsei for the respondent/State submiis that statements of the eresecutt‘ix (PW-1), ‘* Khetan Bai (PW-3) and Kousaiendra Prasad Singh (PW-4) fulty support the case of the prosecution and it is apparent that a poo; iady betonging to “Satnami” (Scheduled Tribe community) has not been onty subjected to humttiation but the offence under section 3 (1) (Xi) oftne Act is aiso made Out. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiel avaiiebte on record. 8. Maiesta Bai (PW—1) — the prosecuttix in her Qpurt statement has stated that by caste she is Satnemi and is working as a peon in Lok Bhereti Middle Schooi, Ramnagar. According to her on the eve of Holt festival ire. date of incident when she was taking bath wearing onty a ' petty-coat, at the bore—welt of the said schooi which is situated within the premises of that schoot; the accused/appeltahts came there after scating i the rhoundary wait. On seeing the accusedfappeiiants, she had asked them to go from there as she was taking bath but they replied that the 3 said bore—wet! did not beiong to hertather or grand—father nor she had purchased the same and thereafter they had beaten her ‘oy hotding her' {ya W Q/ , ‘3 'kvgi? _g’ 3. n order to estabijsh the gum a? the accusecifappeliama ,3 M hands. she haS siated that she was throwrw on the ground and wan: again beaten by the accusedlappeilants. She has siated thai: even the famiture of the school was damaged by ihem. She has stated ihai af%er ihe incident she had gone to the poiice station to todge the z’epott but the same was not registered as it was the day of festivat, therefore, she came back, however, on the second day of the incident she narrated the entire incident to the headmaster of the schoot and the writteo report was prepared which was iodged before the oottce station. tn the cross— exammatlon the prosecutnx stood Very nrm and m fact she was hot subgected to many questions Kheian Bat (33VV-3) is the eve Witness to the moldent thouoh has been declared nosttte but before that she has categoricattv stated as to 1n what manner there was a quarrel bemeeh the prosecutrrx and the accusediappettants. Kousatehdra Prasad erhgh (PW—4) i the headmaster of the school has stated that the prosecutrix is working as a peon‘ in his schoot and she betongs to Scheduted Caste comjmuntty. This witness has stated that on the second day of Hott festivat when the schoo! got opened the erosecutrtx had narrated the entire incident to him and as per her instruction a written report was oreoared and was iodged before the poitce station. P. K. Mishra (PW-2) - the investigating Officer has fatty supported the prosecution case. Even in the 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure the accused/aopeiiants have not taken any defence. 9. The minute examination of the evidences of the prosecutrix (PW-t), Kousaiendra Prasad Sihgh {PW-4) and other witnesses makes it ciear that} the offence under'section 3 {1) (Xi) of the Act is rgijade out against the accused/appellants. Their conviction is strictiy in accordance with iaw and there is no infirmity in the same. Accordingty, judgment impugned being based on due appreciation of the evidence on record, requires no interference in appeal and the same is here by upheid. Appeiiants are reported to be on bait. Their bail bonds stand canoeiied. They he sent to .jaii forthwith to serve out therernainder of sentence. 9