Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 90 (MP)

SANTOSH v. STATE OF M. P.

2018-01-20

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In the present appeal a challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Hoshangabad, Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad in S.T. No. 158/2000 [State of M.P. vs. Santosh] on 10-5-2003 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further R.I. for one month. 2. An application for compounding under section 320(1)of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed jointly by the complainant – Gangabai and the appellant – Santosh which was duly signed and verified by the respective counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the appellant. The matter was also sent to Mediation Centre. The report of the Mediation Centre, dated 22-6-2017 is on record whereby the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable under section 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the relevant time. Therefore, compounding of the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was permitted by this Court vide order 27-11-2017. It was also observed by this Court that at the time of final verdict this Court will consider about the offence under section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for brevity the SC/ST Act]. 3. In the case of P. Ramaswamy vs. State (Union Territory) of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, (2013) 14 SCC 577 , almost in similar facts and circumstances the Apex Court granted permission for compounding offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code on sympathetic consideration of the age of the accused and the compromise arrived at between the parties with the desire to live peacefully. 4. For the purpose of examining conviction under the SC/ST Act, this Court thought it appropriate to consider the testimony of the prosecutrix – Gangabai (PW-1). In para 2 of her deposition she has stated that when she was going to forest in the afternoon to provide meals to her mother-in-law, the accused-appellant met her in the forest and asked her that where she was going. She stated she was going to handover meal to her mother-in-law. In para 2 of her deposition she has stated that when she was going to forest in the afternoon to provide meals to her mother-in-law, the accused-appellant met her in the forest and asked her that where she was going. She stated she was going to handover meal to her mother-in-law. The accused her to stop and when she opposed the accused-appellant forcibly caught hold of her and dragged her to a nearby bush and thereafter the accused pressed her breast and outraged her modesty. She raised alarm, her mother-in-law came over there and the accused-appellant fled away. 5. From reading the contents of the FIR and testimony of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the alleged offence was not committed on account of caste. The allegation simply constitutes offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code irrespective of the caste allegation. 6. In the case of Ramdas and others vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155 the Apex Court held that mere the fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to scheduled castes does not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Further, in the cases of Swaran Singh and others vs. State through Standing Counsel and another, (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405 the Apex Court has expounded the same principle. 7. Therefore, on assimilation of entire facts and evidence, I do not find that any case is made out under section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. Since the alleged offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code has already been compounded and the application in that regard was allowed on 27-11-2017 by this Court, the appellant is acquitted of the alleged charges under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case.