RAM BABU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 17th February, 2000 in Special Case No. 27/99 for the offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence for which he was convicted.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that even if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court is taken on its face value, still the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as according to him, none of the witnesses of the prosecution has proved that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, which is a mandatory requirement for attracting provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Vishal Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submits that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have proved the incident in their respective testimony and according to their testimony, it is proved that the appellant had attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1, a member of Scheduled Caste. He, however, does not dispute the contention of the appellant's learned Counsel that there is no whisper in the statement of any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution before Trial Court to show that the appellant belongs to an upper caste and is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.