MUNNA @ MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused Munna @ Mahendra has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.11.1996 passed by Special Judge (Constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), (In short 'the Act') Mandla, in Special Case No. 10/96, convicting the appellant under Sections 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act with a direction to undergo for six months RI with fine of Rs. 500/- separately in each of such Sections with a direction to run the sentences concurrently and in default of depositing the fine amount, further two months RI in each of the count has been awarded.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 8.11.1990 the prosecutrix Shanti Bai (PW-6) gave a report in writing Ex.P./3, at the Police Station Bijadandi on which, a Crime No. 104/90 was registered at such Police Station on dated 13.11.1990 for the offence of Sections 294, 324, 354 and 506 of I.P.C. In the course of investigation, the Section 3(1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, were also invoked in the matter because as per contention of the prosecutrix, the alleged act was committed by the appellant along with the co-accused with the prosecutrix and other victims with intention to harass and humiliate them on account of their caste 'Baiga' covered under the Act as well as the modesty of the complainant Shanti Bai was outraged by the appellant having the knowledge that she is belonging to the Tribal community covered under the Act. On completion of the investigation, the appellant accompanied with the co-accused were charge-sheeted for the offence of Section 324, 354, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act.

(3.) On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charges of the aforesaid offence were framed against the present applicant while, instead the charge of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, the charge of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act along with the other identical charges were framed against the co-accuse Raju. They abjured the guilt on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the co-accuse Raju was acquitted from all the charges while, extending the acquittal to the appellant from the charges of Sections 294, 324 and 506/34 of I.P.C., he was held guilty for the offence of Section 354 of I.P.C. as well as of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act and punished with the abovementioned sentence. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence, the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal.