1 / 13 2025:CGHC:49217 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 464 of 2008 Judgment Reserved on : 09.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 25.09.2025  Smt. Anita Singh Thakur, wife of Shri Surendra Singh Thakur, aged about 42 years, resident of Civil Lines, Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station – Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (C A V Judgment) 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon 2 / 13 (C.G.), in Special Case No. 75/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act, S.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Tikam Ram who was member of Scheduled Caste posted as Peon in Pre-Secondary School, Pipariya, on 23.11.2006, made a written report at police station Khairagarh to the effect that prior to two years of this report, the accused/appellant who was posted as Teacher in the school, humiliated the complainant saying that she would not drink tea from a cobbler (Mochi). It was also alleged in the report that on 23.11.2006 also when complainant was preparing tea in afternoon, the accused/appellant came there on account of some and the Principal and other teacher sitting in the hall asked the appellant to have tea, at that time also, the applicant uttering filthy words said that she does not drink tea from cobbler, whereupon the applicant was made understand by other employees of the school but she 3 / 13 remained uttering the caste remark, due to which the complainant was humiliated in front of the students. On the basis of said report of the complainant, a crime was registered against the accused/appellant on 23.11.2006 at 06.30 PM. Thereafter, spot map was prepared by the investigating officer on 24.11.2006 and on the very day, caste certificate of the complainant was seized in which his caste was mentioned as ‘Satnami’. 3. During investigation, statement of the complainant and witnesses were recorded and after completing usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and 3 (1)(x) of the Act, 1989 was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, 1989, to which she abjured her guilt and prayed for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by 4 / 13 the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in law as well as on facts in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section (3)(1)(x) of the Act. There is major contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value no offence much less offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the appellant. The learned Special Judge while delivering the impugned judgment of conviction has overlooked the pleadings of para 10 and 12 mainly relation to the cross-examination of the complainant, and did not discuss the facts which has come in the cross-examination. So, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Laxmiprasad Yadav reported in 2014 (4) C.G.L.J. 256. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the 5 / 13 learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and no interference is called for by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court. 9. It is apparent from the record of the trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989, and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court considering the provision of Act, 1989, convicted and sentenced her as mentioned in para of of this judgment. 10. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989, it transpires from the record of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has produced caste certificate (Ex.P/4), perusal of which goes to show that it was issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Raigarh on 04.12.2006, which was valid for only 6 months. The FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the complainant on 24.11.2006, according to which the incident took place on 23.11.2006. Thus, it is clear that this caste certificate (Ex.P-4) was issued by the Nayab Tahsildar after the occurrence of the incident and after lodging of FIR. 11. The question which arises for consideration before this Court whether the conviction of the accused/appellant under 6 / 13 the provision of SC/ST Act is sustainable or not when there is temporary caste certificate available on record. 12. While dealing with the issue where the case certificate was issued after the occurrence of incident, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed in the matter of Babulal Patel Vs. The state of M. P. order dated 15.05.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2004, held in paras 6,7 & 8 as under:- 6. The learned trial court has convicted the accused for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and for this, reliance has been placed upon the provisional caste certificate of complainant, marked as Ex.P-2. It was issued by Tahsildar on 18.12.2002 and contents thereof reveal that it was issued temporarily while the incident of the present case occurred on 8.12.2002, therefore, it is clear that this provisional caste certificate was obtained from Tahsildar after the date of incident. 7. The circular issued by General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh Government dated 30.6.2001 with No.F.7-32/2000/s very relevant here because it came into existence prior to the issuance of provisional certificate of Ex. P-2 in this case. This circular makes it clear that the practice of issuing provisional caste certificate is being stopped henceforth and only in exceptional circumstances, the provisional caste certificate 7 / 13 would be issued. Those exceptional circumstances have also been discussed in the circular itself and they are: (1) for seeking admission in an education institute. (2) for applying for a Government job. (3) for appearing in an interview. (4) for applying in a Government scheme. Under only these four exceptional conditions and that too when the caste certificate is required immediately, the provisional caste certificate was supposed to be issued; for it an application is duly supported with the affidavit and the reason of urgency was to be made. The circular further clarifies that the validity period of this caste certificate would be maximum six months and all such cases in which provisional caste certificate is issued shall be enquired into within the prescribed time frame and if the applicant is not found to be entitled to the certificate, his provisional caste certificate would be cancelled. 8. The above discussed circular was in enforcement when the provisional caste certificate of complainant, marked as Ex.P-2, was issued by Tahsildar. This caste certificate was issued to prove the caste of complainant in a criminal case. Obviously, the purpose of issuing this provisional caste certificate was not covered under the circular of 30.6.2001. Thus, the learned trial court was in error in relying upon the caste certificate of Ex.P-2 which was issued in flagrant violation of the existing circular of Madhya Pradesh 8 / 13 Government dated 30.6.2001. In the light of this observation, it is held that the caste of complainant was not duly proved in the case by any credible document. 13. Further, this Court in the matter of Meghnath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [ Cr.A. No.822/2002 dated 24.06.2024], referring the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, held in paras 11 and 12 as under :- “11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which has been followed by this court in the case of Pilla Bai (supra). Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) has specifically observed that the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather that officer at Taluk or Mandal Level. 12. Considering the overall material and evidence available on record, in the light of the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), it is found that the Caste Certificate vide (Ex.P-3) of the complainant was issued by the Village-Sarpanch (PW-6) who is not a competent authority to issue caste certificate. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt and the same is liable to be set aside.” 9 / 13 14. In the instant case also, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that the complainant (PW-1) belonged to Scheduled Caste category by not proving any caste certificate issued by the competent authority. The learned trial Court relying upon the temporary caste certificate (Ex.P-4) issued by Nayab Tahsildar which was valid only for 6 months, recorded the finding of conviction, which in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decisions of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court, in Babulal and Meghnath (supra), is not sustainable in the eye of law, being not exceptional case. 15. The next question which arises for consideration by this Court whether the accused/appellant abused or humiliated the complainant by his caste “Chamar”. 16. It is clear from the evidence of complainant (PW-1) that on 23.11.2006 he was making tea in the school. Teacher Ravilal and Headmaster Ravi Kumar were sitting in the hall. At that time, the accused/appellant came there for some work then he said the accused/appellant to have tea but the accused/appellant said that she does not drink tea from a cobbler (Chamar). At the relevant time, Teacher Mahesh Kumar said the appellant not to talk like this. Thereafter, he (this witness) again said the accused/appellant to drink tea and not to abuse. On this, the accused/appellant went away 10 / 13 saying repeatedly that she does not drink tea from a cobbler (chamar). In cross-examination, he has stated that he had been working in the canteen of the school for last six years and prior to 1 ½ – 2 months of the incident, the accused/appellant stopped drinking tea and before that she used to drink tea made by him. This witness has admitted that the accused/appellant never denied to drink tea made by him before. He has also admitted that prior to the incident, the accused/appellant had never practiced untouchability. This witness in para 4 of his cross- examination has stated that the accused/appellant once asked me for chalk and when he gave it to her, she slapped me but he did not file any report in this regard in the police station. He has also admitted that the accused/appellant never assaulted him in the name of serving tea. Even the incident that occurred 2-3 years ago wasn’t about serving tea. Further, this witness in para 5, has admitted that the report (Ex.P-1) was typed by Arjanvis in Khairagarh. In para 6, this witness has denied this suggestion that a departmental dispute was going on amongst Headmaster Ravi Shrivastava, Mahesh and accused/appellant and he filed a false report at the behest of Ravi Shrivastava and Mahesh. 11 / 13 17. Mahesh Kumar Bhuarya (PW-2) is the Headmaster. He has supported the evidence of complainant (PW-1) and has stated that the accused/appellant had denied to drink tea and said that she will not drink tea from Chamra. This witness, in cross-examination, has admitted that prior to the incident, the accused/appellant used to drink tea from complainant Tikam (PW-1) and she never denied to drink tea. This witness has denied this suggestion that they were deliberately harassing/teasing the accused/appellant and lodged a false report by complainant Tikam (PW-1). 18. Ravilal Shrivastava (PW-3) is a Teacher who was posted in the school at the time of incident. He has also stated at the time of incident, accused/appellant came and was talking with the Headmaster (PW-2) about the office affair and then leaving. The Headmaster said the accused/appellant to have a tea before she leave but the accused/appellant replied that she would not drink tea from a Chamar. But in para 6 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that prior to the incident, the accused/appellant used to have tea and snacks prepared by complainant Tikam (PW-1). This witness has denied this suggestion that they had dispute with accused/appellant and because of this they filed a false report through complainant Tikam (PW-1). 12 / 13 19. It has come in the evidence of complainant Tikam (PW-1) that the written report (Ex.P-1) was typed by Arjanvis in Khairagarh and he was dictating the Arjanvis. Perusal of written report (Ex.P-1) goes to show that in ‘B to B’ part, it was written that “ iwoZ esa nks o”kksZ igys gkFk&eqDdk ls eksph ds gkFkks ls pk; ugh ih;qaxh djds viekfur dh FkhA ”. 20. Whether the utterance of caste without there being any intention to humiliate or insult a member of Scheduled category is sufficient to constitute the offence, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. Daulat Prasad reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 467 held that mere utterance of word “Chamar” without there being any intention to insult of humiliate a member fo Scheduled Caste would not make out the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. 21. In the instant case, it has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses that prior to the incident, the accused/appellant used to have tea and snacks prepared by complainant Tikam (PW-1) and before that she never practiced untouchability. Thus, from the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant, in any manner, did not abuse or humiliate the complainant (PW-1) by his caste. 13 / 13 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Case No. 75/2007, is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against her. 23. The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE