1 2025:CGHC:1650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1209 of 2001 1 - Deleted (Dinesh) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025 2 - Bhuwan S/o Chouhan Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 3 - Hiraman S/o Kishun Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 4 - Deleted (Mannu) In Compliance Of Honble Court Dated 08-01-2025. 5 - Mayaram S/o Shivcharan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 6 - Sukhdev S/o Bihari Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 7 - Bisoha S/o Devnath Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 8 - Shankar S/o Devnath Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 9 - Phool Singh S/o Rajwa Rawat Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 10 - Gaukaran @ Chabil S/o Cherku Rawat Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 11 - Deleted (Mohan) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. 12 - Devdhar S/o Sukhnandan Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). 13 - Kamluram S/o Shiv Prasad Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Phooljhar, P.S. Gunderdehi District - Durg (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P. L. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment On Board 10/01/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Durg (Chhattisgarh) in Special Case No.64/2000, by which the appellants have been held guilty under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “ Act of 1989”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulations. 2. 2. The appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 B/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of Act of 1989 that despite knowing that the complainant- Brijlal (PW-1) is a member of Scheduled Caste, they filthily abused and threatened him to dire consequences on 16.05.1999 at 10:00 pm in public place. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant- Brijlal (PW- 1) who is a member of Scheduled Caste was abused filthily on his caste by the appellants in a public place. A report to this effect was lodged, investigation was set on motion and after due investigation charge-sheet was filed. 4. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC 3 were also recorded in which they denied the charge made against them, and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence adduced before it acquitted the accused/appellants of the charge U/S 506-B/ 34 IPC, but convicted and sentenced them as described above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the prosecution could not prove the caste of the complainant apart from this there is no evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty under Section 294 IPC, no humiliating word was stated by the appellants. The only allegation which emerges from the statement of complainant is that the complainant Brijlal (PW-1) was called by his caste and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants stated the same with intention to humiliate the complainant- Brijlal (PW-1). To buttress his submission, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Genddas Vs. State of M. P. (Now C. G.) reported in 2015 (2) C.G.L.J. 478 and a decision of MP High Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. [2012] M. P. 1670. 7. Per contra State counsel submits that prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused/ appellants beyond reasonable doubts. He submits that even if the caste certificate has not been proved in accordance with law, from evidence of other witnesses, no interference is warranted. 8. Heard the arguments advanced and perused the material on record. 9. The first point of determination by this Court as to whether the complainant belongs to a scheduled caste to convict the appellants under the Act of 1989. Though the witnesses have stated that Brijlal belongs to Satnami Caste, however from record it does not appear 4 that any caste certificate was exhibited and proved. The learned trial Court also in the judgment stated that though the caste certificate of the appellants could not be proved however, from the statements of witnesses, the caste of the appellants can be simply inferred. This Court in the case of Genddas (Supra) has held that as there is no proof (intent) to humiliate or intentionally insult the complainant, conviction under the provision of Section 3(1) (x) of Act of 1989 cannot sustain. In the case of Santosh Kumar (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that no certificate issued by the Competent Authority to prove the caste of complainant mere oral testimony of complainant not sufficient to hold that he belonged to community concerned under the Act of 1989. 10. In the case in hand, the evidence gathered is that the only word which the appellants said to have stated is the caste of the complainant- Brijlal and no other filthy language was used or no humiliating word was stated. As the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 294 of IPC, the conviction of the appellants under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Act of 1989 cannot sustain. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from charges under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Act of 1989. 11. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Records be sent back. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.01.10 17:27:07 +0530