Ram Babu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 17th February, 2000 in Special Case No. 27/99 for the offence u/s 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence for which he was convicted.

Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that even if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court is taken on its face value, still the Appellant could not have been convicted for the offence u/s 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as according to him, none of the witnesses of the prosecution has proved that the Appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, which is a mandatory requirement for attracting provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Per contra, Mr. Vishal Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submits that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have proved the incident in their respective testimony and according to their testimony, it is proved that the Appellant had attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1, a member of Scheduled Caste. He, however, does not dispute the contention of the Appellant''s learned Counsel that there is no whisper in the statement of any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution before Trial Court to show that the Appellant belongs to an upper caste and is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

On giving my thoughtful consideration to the above rival arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties, I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant. According to Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the complainant (P.W. 1) ought to have alleged that the Appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that she was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint and the evidence that was produced by the prosecution, the conviction against the Appellant for offence u/s 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained. Reliance in support of this view is placed on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 1 SCC 446.

In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court against the Appellant is hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge u/s 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. His bail bonds are cancelled.