Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yagyapal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
1 CRA-8973-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8973 of 2023
YAGYAPAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant instead of
pressing I.A. No.7960/2025, which is third application under Section 430(1)
of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to appellant Yagyapal Patel S/o Shri Baidhyanath Patel,
prays that this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.7960/2025 is dismissed as not pressed and with the
consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is filed by the
convicted appellant – Yagyapal Patel being aggrieved of the judgment dated
21.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Rewa (M.P.) in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
2 CRA-8973-2023
Special case No.20028/2015 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yagyapal Patel ),
wherein the appellant stands convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘SC/ST Act’) and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 7 years (fine of Rs.100/-) and life imprisonment (fine of
Rs.100/-), respectively with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for
2 months on each count.
4. Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant raises two fold
submissions, firstly, provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will not
be attracted in view of the evidence of PW-1 Maya, so-called eye witness
and also in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Masumsha
Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557.
Secondly, it is submitted that conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC
may be maintained, but sentence of 7 years is too harsh and it may be
reduced suitably. His prayer is to declare it undergone.
5. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor supports the
impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and submits that the
brutality with which injuries were caused to deceased Neelesh, does not call
for interference in conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. It is
further submitted that the deceased was belonging to Scheduled caste
community, conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act cannot be
faulted with.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-1 Maya, daughter of Jiyalal stated that she had gone to pick fire
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
3 CRA-8973-2023
woods along with Sahil, Savita, Sapna and Neelesh. They were collecting
woods from a garden and after collecting woods, they were sitting under a
mango tree, when Yagyapal came and threw a piece of mud on them, as a
result of which, they started running, but Neelesh could not cope with them
and, therefore, he was caught hold of by Yagyapal. Yagyapal had thrown
him on floor and had beaten him with kicks and fists. Thereafter, Sokhal
Bansal had reached the place of the incident, when she narrated the story to
him and on his advice they came back to their house. In the examination-in-
chief, PW-1 Maya, who claims herself to be an eye witness, neither stated
that Neelesh was beaten on account of he being a member of scheduled caste
community nor any casteist remarks were made by Yagyapal.
7. PW-2 Sokhal Basore is the person to whom incident was narrated by
PW-1 Maya. He too has not stated anything in regard to use of casteist
remarks or Yagyapal beating Neelesh on account of his caste.
8. It has also come on record that the garden where the kids including the
deceased were collecting fire woods, belongs to appellant Yagyapal.
9. PW-3 Savita Basore has also corroborated what PW-1 Maya has stated.
Nowhere she has said that Neelesh was beaten on account of his caste or any
casteist remarks were passed against him.
10. PW-4 Maujal Prasad Basore stated that Savita and Maya came running
from the garden, while he was sipping his tea. They had informed that father
of doctor was beating Neelesh. They had informed him name of Yagyapal
Patel on his asking. Thereafter, he had reached the place of the incident,
where Sokhal had taken Neelesh in his arms and found Neelesh to be dead.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
4 CRA-8973-2023
Neelesh had urinated in his underwear.
11. PW-5 Motilal Basore has proved certain documents like Shav
Panchayatnama, etc. and does not claim himself to be an eye witness.
12. PW-6 Satyendra Singh proved the caste certificate of the deceased,
whereas PW-7 Kamlesh Sharma carried out investigation and had registered
various documents and had sent dead body for postmortem, etc.
13. PW-8 Harsh Lal Saket stated that on Naksha Panchyatnama (Ex.P-2)
and spot map (Ex.P-12), his signatures were obtained at police station. Even
in memorandum (Ex.P-5) and seizure memo (Ex.P-4), his signatures were
obtained at police station. This witness was declared hostile.
14. PW-9 Dr. S.D. Kol stated that he was working as Medical Officer at
CHC, Mauganj on 07.05.2015. Postmortem was carried out by Dr. R.N.
Sharma, Dr. R.K. Mishra and Dr. Anoop Singh. Out of team of 3 doctors,
Dr. R.K. Mishra is dead, Dr. R.N. Sharma is suffering from cancer and is
unable to move, but is present before the court to identify his signatures. Dr.
Anoop Singh is not posted at CHC, Mauganj. Thereafter, he stated that in the
postmortem it was found that injury No.1 was an abrasion on the right side of
the nostril measuring 1 x 0.5 cms. Injury No.2 was another abrasion on the
left hand measuring 1 x 1 cm. Apart from the said injuries, there were no
other external injury found. As per the opinion of team of 3 doctors,
deceased Neelesh Basore died on account of injuries caused to his stomach
with hard and blunt object, resulting in burst of spleen causing neurogenic
shock.
15. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
5 CRA-8973-2023
prior to amendment Act 1 of 2016, which is made effective from 26.01.2016,
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act provides that “commits any offences under
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term
of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such
person is a member of Scheduled caste or a Scheduled tribe or such property
belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and
with fine.”
16. With effect from 26.01.2016 following words have been added,
namely, “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.”
17. Thus, distinction between pre-amended Section i.e. prior to 26.01.2016
and post-amended Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is
that prior to amendment, offence should have been committed on the ground
that such a person is belonging to SC/ST, whereas, post-amendment, it is
sufficient to have knowledge that the person belongs to SC/ST category.
That means prior to amendment, offence should be on the ground that person
belongs to SC/ST, whereas, post-amendment, knowledge of a person
belonging to SC/ST is sufficient and thus, post amendment impact of
knowledge alone is wider in connotation than pre-amendment position.
18. Thus, in the present case, since incident took place prior to the
amendment, what is required to be seen is whether offence was committed
on the ground that the victim was a member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe community. None of the eye-witnesses have stated that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
6 CRA-8973-2023
Yagyapal had beaten Neelesh on account of he belonging to scheduled caste
or scheduled tribe community and, therefore, in the light of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman (supra),
wherein Supreme Court has held that “In the present case, there is no
evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged
against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian
Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such
ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.”
19. Similar ratio is laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
o f Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 18 SCC 763 ,
wherein in paragraph 12 and 13 it is held as under:-
“12. From the evidence and other materials on record, there
is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the
appellant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled
Caste. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded the finding
that the appellant-accused scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he
belongs to “Khangar” caste and how he could drive away thecattle of the person belonging to “Thakur” caste and therefore, the
appellant-accused has committed the offence under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:358487 CRA-8973-2023
Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the
punishments for offences of atrocities committed under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–(1) ….
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Schedule Tribe, –
….
(v) commits any offence under the Penal Code, 45 of 1860
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
against a person or property knowing that such person is a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property
belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for life and with fine.”
The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is to provide for
enhanced punishment with regard to the offences under the Penal
Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property knowing that the victim is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
13. In Dinesh Vs.. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 3 SCC 771 ,
the Supreme Court held as under :
“15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that
an offence must have been committed against a person on the
ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:358488 CRA-8973-2023
the Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led
to establish this requirement. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member
of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect,
Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the
Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the
sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine.”
20. Thus, it is evident that in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman (supra) and Khuman
Singh (supra), since none of the witnesses have stated that Neelesh was
beaten on account of he belonging to a particular caste, but it has come on
record that the garden in which Neelesh and others had gained unauthorized
entry, belongs to Yagyapal and his family, therefore, provisions of Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will not be applicable. Thus, we have no hesitation
to set aside conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Hence, conviction and sentence of the appellant
for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside.
21. Second ground raised by Shri Siddharth Datt of reducing sentence of
the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC from 7 years to
lesser period or declare it to be undergone, is not appealable. In view of the
evidence of PW-9 Dr. S.D. Kol, report of the postmortem is categorical that
deceased died because of burst of spleen, which was a result of injuries
caused by hard and blunt object on the stomach region of deceased. When
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35848
9 CRA-8973-2023
this evidence is taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that no
leniency is required to reduce the sentence and 7 years appears to be
moderate sentence under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore,
we refuse to show any indulgence to modify the sentence awarded by the
trial Court under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
22. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part and
disposed of. Impugned judgment dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST), Rewa (M.P.) in Special case No.20028/2015 is
modified to the extent indicated above. The case property be disposed off in
terms of the judgment of the trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent
back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 8/5/2025
10:32:31 AM
[ad_1]
Source link