NEERAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 9.5.2012 Shri Ashok Chakraverti, Adv. for the appwllant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer for state. Heard finally. Appellant Neeraj son of Uma Shankar alias Nakul Suryawanshi Kalar R/o village Belgaon Dist. Chhindwara has filed this Criminal Appeal U/s374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 9.5.2007 passed by Special Sessions Judge Chhindwara in Special Case No.9/2005 convicting the appellant u/s 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and sentencing him R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I for two months.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted u/s 3(1)(xi) of the Act as there was nothing on record by which it can be ascertained that the incident occurred due to caste of Durgabai (PW 3). He further submits that though Durgabai (PW 3) has stated that appellant outraged her modesty and told 'Sali Gondni', but only due to application about the words relating to caste the provision of the Act are not applicable, moreover, no corroboration is there that such word uttered by appellant as Sumantra Bai (PW 4) mother of the prosecutrix has not supported the version of the prosecutrix on the ground of utterance of these words as Shyama Bai (PW 1) has also not supported the incident at all. LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case Ratanlal v. State of M.P. reported in M.P.Weekly Notes,1994(1) Note No.[154] wherein it has been observed that due to utterance of words relating to caste it is not the only ground on which the provisions of the Act may be apply. It is further for the prosecution to prove that the incident occurred on the ground of caste only in that situation the provisions of the Act will be applicable . The relevant portion is quoted as under: "In the present case the only fact displayed in the FIR is that the complainant was called 'Khatik'. It is undisputed that he is a Khatik. The threats contained in the complaint which follow have nothing to do with the complainant belonging to the Scheduled caste. Those threats eminate out of the past relations between the complainant and the accused as a villager and sarpanch of the village. None of the allegations show that they were made with the intent to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of his belonging to a scheduled caste. Consequently there is no nexus between the utterance of the word 'Khatik' and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant. In the absence of such nexus, he has used the word of the case to which the complainant belong by itself would not be sufficient in the absence of any other material to base factual foundation for a charge u/s 3(1)(x) ibid."

(3.) ON due consideration of the fact of the case and from the perusal of the evidence available on record it is very much clear that the conviction and sentence of the offence u/s 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence u/s 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 but he is punished/ convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to two days' Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default three months R.I.