RAKESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.1996 passed by Special Judge, West Nimar Mandleshwar in Special Case No. 119/94, whereby appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 3 (1) (XI) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for a period of six months RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN short case of the prosecution was that Sajanbai W/o Shyamlal is a member of Scheduled Tribe while the appellant is Brahmin by caste. It was alleged that complainant Sajanbai living with her husband in a quarter situated within the periphery of RS. Chenpur. It was alleged that husband of the complainant Shyamlal was watchman in the Dak bungalow. On 27.11.1994 at about 7:00 p.m. when Shyamlal, husband of the complainant, went to supply the food to the Supervisor of MPEB at that time complainant Sajanbai was standing outside her house. At that time appellant Rakesh Tripathi came there and pushed her by saying that she has to remain with him as his wife. Upon this complainant Sajanbai told that appellant will be beaten by sleepers. Further case of the prosecution was that upon shouting Shyamlal, who was returning after supplying the food came there. It was further alleged that appellant was saying to the complainant that she is Bhil by community and can keep number of husbands. It was alleged that since the appellant saw Shyamlal, therefore, he ran away. The complaint was lodged by the complainant on the next day i.e. on 28.11.1994 as the police station was at a distance of 8 kms. and there was no facility of transportation. Upon the complaint filed by the complainant, case was registered against the appellant under section 354 read with section 3(1) (XI) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Aci. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant under section 3 (1) (XI) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After recording of the evidence learned Court below found that appellant has committed offence punishable under section 3(1) (XI) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted as stated above, against which present appeal has been filed.

(3.) SHRI Raghuveer Singh, Dy. Government Advocate for the State argues in support of the judgment passed by the Court below and submits that impugned order is based on evidence, which requires no interference.