High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction under the SC/ST Act. The court upheld the impugned judgment finding the accused guilty, cancelled bail bonds, and ordered the appellants to jail to serve remaining sentence.
Judgment upheld; appellants reported on bail, bail bonds cancelled, sent to jail to serve remainder of sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/¢II@Mai@azmw /lgg;lz
I N TH” qTF‘H COURT OT MAUHX“ PRAUE H A- JABALPUR cRI mm AppmL 1x0 ?)7[ L 0“ 1994. L . App &LA m._1. Banshi/éon of Ha‘numan In Jall Prasad aged about 24 years 0/ v . Aansukblal 4011 o; aanshlla’i, aced about 23' years ./ / Both res1den'Ls of Paradeshl ”howk Ralnnaqar 3&pela, P S Sapela, Djrg w? Ver su s HMu: mm“ w mww R ESPONDENT' .. ihe State of Madhya Pradesh throucxh S5 ,,,,,,,’;L Ey$¥J§W“" P o Sapela Burg. mmwiF..f‘?'7 " ‘ Man ¥ v ivrca‘? gb&§‘ ‘ Wm 2 aL‘...;:lL:fw , s Em ms F. fSC/“tu/sAtroc1t1es)3E1/(11)PreventlonActof the1909of Rs6 monthsI1000/— 1nR Idemultand mne1‘ mcmthsof APPEAL UNDFR SPCTION 37a o THE pom 0*: Clam TRIAL PRocmmp 6‘ 7
@@3
HEGH COHR?GE?i33-§§-§AT”T§$G,A$E$€$33“aiLAS?%.§R i§%mmME”,Jagst'aae?§§im§<gf§3§wak§srg
‘
CRMWJ‘AL M3P§ALNa‘3%an?1§gé AWELLAMTg Bamhi am anoirm RES?G:\§@ENT Shae o; 1V *va 9r9desh
AWELLAMTg
Shir? Ragms’nSmg"Baghe§Cewmei fer ihe 1 ccused/appeiiaASa h Snr VveKQramaat YO‘ werewmd
CRIMENAL £P?tALi§$§i3t§$¢£§Ti m .;?£; ‘fHE {KEBE i3? m PW h?E€G$E3§JRE g Lag c; M Egg; {524.5a2mm ‘ ¢
The p¥e5erzt‘apfaea ariSes Gut of ii. e jmigmem am ama? dazed 3O(4" wwxvasged bi! SpaciaéJudge,DugmSgeciai‘Cage i‘xio. 35i19g‘2 ohvmtmg tm gccusw/appeians under $e¢ > SchedmedQasteand S‘hedue Hba (We/ehHm Q’Masha: M; 198g (fos' short ‘the ACE} and $emammg mam ts} u : m priwameni for s§x menths aw gay xé i we Qf Rs. 1600 n dgfau a? gwaymsan:offineisfuriherunderga31mpigimpa'isanmenéforoneand haif months repm‘i 7 The bi‘iaf faciscfthecasearethatom21331992wri‘itan P4} was iodged by Kousaiendva Prasad Singh (PW—4), i‘ne (EX. Hegdmaaefm‘Lak‘aharatiMiddieSchool;Rami’lage; aiieging m 2?. iha‘i i‘ne prowcutrix (PW-f) is wmkjng in hi$ 30mm ‘és a egon and OH i933 1992 a? 'abnut 4 p m an er‘ We was“aKma 0am at the him:—m!‘ siiuated wimms$hoe$ premésaaheacc:.1sedlappe§§amscamethemW32” an ‘intez’IEmfaf$$homur Eta? and i‘ney teased, hara3$ed; mi$behavad, aisb aaswuiied ‘rw and madra an aimm‘pi to puii her wt knowing ihatshe was not 1L4 w meswdas sn wag bathma Based 0nibiswrittenrepart, rF’ {FX 97‘ wak registemd agamat *he accusM/abpehauts on p3x04.1 992aadunaflanwasmedan050519‘32.
J
{ya W ‘3 , 'kvgi?
i
‘*
_g’ 3. n order to estabijsh the gum a? the accusecifappeliama has examingd T14 witnewes $taiemem$ :3? :‘e prosecution assu$ed!a;opeiiants were aisa recarded undefSssiisn 3‘1 3 a?‘ ihe Qm‘a 0f Cr‘imma§ Procedure in whmh they §en§ed the chaa'ge ievei§ed agaiast them and pieaded their immense and faige implisation in the case: ‘ A a}: ihe impugned judgment ihe Earned tria‘i Cm" has camlictad ihe aocdsed/appeiianm far me affence as men'iwmad above. Hence the presentapgeai. o.F. i Counsel far the acCUSeclV/a$pe¥iani$ sagbmits ’{haiJ. ihe appeiiawts have been faiseiyimeiicated §§me§y eeeause ihe presecumx beioegstoa earticijé: caste ‘Sai‘nami" oiherwiee m3 offeece whaieoever is made eut against them. He fuz’t‘ner submiis that a miner diepute between the appellanis and i‘ne prosecuirixhas been exaggerated just t0 give i’ne serious look into ihe matter. 6. 3 On ihe other hand supporting the impugned Quagmentoounseifor the respondent/State submiis that statements ofthe eresecutt‘ix (PW-1), Khetan Bai (PW-3) and Kousaiendra PrasadSingh (PW-4)fultysupport the case of the prosecution and it is apparent that a poo; iady betonging to“Satnami” (ScheduledTribecommunity)hasnotbeenontysubjectedto humttiation but the offence under section 3 (1) (Xi)oftneActisaisomade Out.
Q/
,3M
hands. she haS siated that she wasthrowrwonthe groundandwan:again beaten by the accusedlappeilants. She has siated thai: even thefamiture of the school was damaged by ihem. She has stated ihai af%er ihe incident she had gonetothe poiicestationtotodgethe z’epott but the 9 same was not registeredasitwasthedayoffestivat,therefore,shecame back, however, on the second dayoftheincidentshenarratedtheentire incident to the headmaster of the schoot and the writteo report was which was iodged before the oottce station. tn the cross— prepared exammatlon the prosecutnx stood Very nrm and m fact she was hot subgected to many questions Kheian Bat (33VV-3) istheeveWitness to the moldent thouoh has been declared nosttte but before that she has categoricattv stated as to 1n what mannerthere wasa quarrelbemeeh the prosecutrrx and theaccusediappettants. Kousatehdra Prasad erhgh (PW—4)itheheadmasteroftheschoolhasstatedthattheprosecutrixis working as a peon‘in his schoot and she betongs to Scheduted Caste comjmuntty. This witness has stated that on the second day of Hott festivat when the schoo! got opened the erosecutrtxhad narrated the entire incident to him and as per her instruction a written report was - oreoared and was iodgedbeforethe poitcestation. P. K. Mishra (PW-2) the investigating Officerhasfattysupportedthe prosecutioncase. Even in the 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure the accused/aopeiiants have not taken any defence. 9. The minute examinationoftheevidencesofthe prosecutrix (PW-t), Kousaiendra Prasad Sihgh {PW-4) and other witnesses makes it ciear that} the offence under'section3 {1) (Xi)oftheActisrgijadeoutagainstthe accused/appellants. Their conviction is strictiy in accordance with iaw and there is no infirmity in the same. Accordingty, judgmentimpugned being based on due appreciationoftheevidenceonrecord,requiresno interference in appeal and the same is here by upheid. Appeiiants are reported to be on bait.Theirbailbondsstandcanoeiied.Theyhesentto .jaii forthwith to serve out therernainderofsentence.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of appellants under Section 3(1)(A)(i) of the SC/ST Act requires interference on appeal.
Whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses supports the finding of the trial court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Banshidron of Hanuman In Jall Prasad
Aansukhlal
State of Madhya Pradesh
Unknown
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
