MUKESH PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 4 th April,2007, delivered by the then Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mandla in Special Case No.1/07 in which appellants have been convicted and sentenced for one month R.I. under Section 294 of IPC, and, six months' R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Appellant no.1 Mukesh Patel has further been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for three months, whereas appellant no.2 Sonu Patel has further been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to three months' R.I. In default of payment of fine both the appellants were directed to further undergo R.I. for one and half month.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellants submitted that appellants have been wrongly convicted for alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as cause of the incident was dispute of land and putting rubbish on the land and not on the ground of caste. Counsel further submitted that the allegation that word "Mehra" was used is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. For attraction of provisions of the Act, it is necessary that the incident should be done on the ground of caste, only then a person can be punished under the aforesaid offence. LEARNED counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision in Ratanlal vs. State of M.P. reported in M.P.W.N, 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 apply. It is for the prosecution to prove further that the incident occurred on the ground of caste, and only in that situation the provisions of the Act will be applicable.

(3.) AS far as conviction under other sections of IPC, enumerated above, is concerned, learned counsel for appellants has not challenged the finding of conviction, but confined his arguments only on the point of sentence. Counsel submitted that the appellants have already suffered the jail sentence of about 5 days. The incident is of the year 2006, more than 41/2 years have passed by now. Therefore, appellants' case may be considered sympathetically and they may be released on the period already undergone.