KUNDANLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.4.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Raisen (Constituted under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for short "the Act") in Special Case No.206/2000 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 323/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/ - in default of it further one month SI was awarded while appellant No.1 additionally convicted under section 3(1)(x) of the Act for six months RI with fine of Rs.200/ -, in default of it further fifteen days SI was awarded. During the pendency of this appeal parties have entered in compromise, in pursuance of it the appellants have been acquitted from the charge of section 323/34 of IPC vide order dated 4.4.2007.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 25.5.1998 Vijay Singh victim went to the house of Radhabai to give the papers sent by the Collector; he handed over the same to her husband Kundanlal who was available there with other appellants. In response of it he was abused by filthy languages with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste "Chamar" and was also beaten by the appellants, he came back to home and mentioned the incident to his mother Kalabai. She asked them the reason for such act, on which the appellant entered in her house and humiliated her in the same manner and also beat her by fists and kicks and with intention to outrage her modesty her sari was also tom.

(3.) SHRI Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment saying that the alleged incident had not happened because of the caste of the victims covered under the Act but the incident took place on account of some political enmity in between the family of appellant No.1 and the victims. Besides this, there was another dispute between them regarding a septic tank constructed by the appellants in spite the objection of the victim's family. The trial Court has not considered these aspects on appreciation of evidence. He further said that the complainant Kalabai did not say that appellant committed the alleged act with intention to humiliate her on account of her caste. In the lack of such evidence the impugned conviction under the Act is not sustainable and prayed for allowing the appeal.