1 2025:CGHC:17413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 425 of 2008 1 - Raghunath Singh @ Jhakar Ram Binjhiya , S/o Patiram Binjhiya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Rikhi, P.S. Udaypur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- The District Magistrate, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 16.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant assailing the legality, correctness and judicial proprietary of the judgment dated 05.04.2008 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge {Established under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989} Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Special Act”) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 06 months & fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 01 month. 2. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-01) belongs to Basod Caste and is a member of Scheduled BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.04.17 16:27:24 +0530 2 Caste. The appellant belongs to Bichhiya caste and is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. On the date of incident i.e. on 14.06.2006 in the morning at 06.00 a.m. the prosecutrix (PW-01) had gone to pick Mahua in Village Rikhi, at that time the appellant came from behind and in order to outrage her modesty held her from her waist and started pulling her. When resisted by the prosecutrix he was plunged on the floor. On being shouted by the prosecutrix, Ramsai (PW-02), Budhiya and Jamtolhin (PW-03) came and upon seeing them, the appellant ran away. The incident was reported to Police Station Udaipur. The crime was registered and thereafter investigation was set on motion. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur who committed the matter to the trial Court. 3. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act and alternatively under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to establish its’ case the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses and exhibited 03 documents. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material placed before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant under the provision of the Special Act cannot be sustained as the caste certificate placed on record is issued by Additional Tehsildar, Udaipur who is not a competent authority to issue such a caste certificate. He further 3 submits that caste certificate is a temporary one and not issued by a competent authority. Apart from this he further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon to hold conviction as it has come on record that there was a dispute between the prosecutrix and the appellant on the count of picking up the Mahua, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated. To buttress his submission, with regard to set-aside the conviction under the Special Act he relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of Pilla Bai Vs. State of C.G. reported in 2023 (3) CGLJ 1. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted form all the charges. In the event the appellant is acquitted from the charges under the Special Act and is convicted under Section 354, as the appellant has remained in jail for 6-7 days, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant, the incident has occurred on 14.06.2006 and for all these years, the appellant is facing lis. The appellant was granted bail by the trial Court and also by this Court. It is not apparent that he was involved in any criminal activity during this period and he must have reformed in the society by now and at the date of incident he was aged about 35 years and after lapse of about 19 years he must have attained mature age. His pre-mature release is not detrimental to society at large, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone may be by enhancing the fine. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court meticulously examined the evidence brought before it in its proper perspective and the finding recorded by 4 the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant had knowledge of the caste of the prosecutrix and therefore, even if the caste certificate has been issued by the Additional Tehsildar, it would hardly make any difference. The statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient enough to hold appellant guilty of the offence and as such, the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The first issue which comes for consideration before this Court is to whether the conviction of appellant under the provision of the Special Act can stand in the scrutiny of this Court or not? The caste certificate of the complainant/prosecutrix is marked as Article-A and was issued by Additional Tehsildar on 09.10.2006 which appears to be issued after date of incident. The ingredient of availability of proper caste certificate issued by the competent authority who is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, is also absent in this case, which was obtained much after the incident. In this case the caste certificate was issued by the Additional Tehsildar who is not competent to do so in view of the settled legal position in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, where it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- “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 than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.” 10. Following the decision of Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) and in the matter of Pilla Bai (supra) this Court has held as under:- 5 “21. The procedure for issuance of caste certificate has been well prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which laid down the forum and procedure for issuance of/assailing caste certificate and the status of candidate. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the aforesaid caste certificate has no evidentiary value, as it has not been issued by incompetent authority and the prosecution has failed to discharge his burden to prove the caste as discussed above. Apart from this, from the perusal of evidence available on record, it is evident that the appellants have not abused the complainants in filthy language knowing that they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. This can be fortified from the bare perusal of the statement of the victim – Rupnath.” 11. From the aforesaid factual and legal position, the conviction of the accused-appellant under the Special Act as has been recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is also not reflected from the evidence that the said offence was committed by the appellant with an intention that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste. In light of above, particularly in absence of evidence of caste certificate and issuing authority and in light of judgment quoted above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the appellant under the Special Act beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under the Special Act. 12. The appellant was alternatively charged under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Now this Court has to see as to whether prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant under Section 354 of the I.P.C. In this context, the statement of prosecutrix (PW-01) is required to be examined meticulously. If her statement is found to be credible, impeccable and is of sterling quality, the conviction can be sustained. 13. The prosecutrix is examined as PW-01 in paragraph 2 of her deposition she stated that she has gone to jungle to pick dori along with her 6 Jamtolhin, Bhagat were also there. The appellant came from behind and could not be seen by her. The appellant held her from behind and pulled her waist. He held her waist by his both hand, thereafter, she came back. She further deposed that the incident was reported on the same day to Police Station Udaipur (FIR) in which she has put her thumb expression. In the cross-examination she admits that the land of the appellant is adjoining to her land and a Mahua tree is planted in both the lands and there is previous enmity between them on account of picking up the Mahua. She further deposed that to bring the wood she used to go to jungle along with 4-5 persons. She herself stated that sometimes she goes alone. She denied that she has lodged a report on saying of her husband. She admitted that the police person has not read over any paper. She further denied the suggestion that the report was lodged in Police Station on the saying of her husband. On scrutiny of this statement of this witness it is apparent that she said to have stated that she was held by the appellant from behind and he was pulling her from her waist. It is also apparent that the land of the appellant and the prosecutrix are adjoining which has the Mahua tree planted. It is germane on the record that people go to pick the Mahua and there is land dispute between the appellant and the prosecutrix. 14. Ram Sai (PW-2) was examined who appears to be a hearsay witness of the incident. He also deposed that there is a property dispute in the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant. He also admits that the Mahua tree is planted in the disputed land and a scuffle had occurred between the husband of the prosecutrix and the appellant with regard to the Mahua tree. 15. Smt. Jamtolhin (PW-3) deposed in her statement that in the morning 7 she has gone to pick the dori and prior to that prosecutrix had gone to pick Mahua and dori and she followed her. She deposed that the appellant caught hold hand of the prosecutrix and she saw this when the prosecutrix shouted. She admits in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix is her Sister-in-law (tsBkuh) and belongs to the same family. She denied the suggestion that she did not see the appellant holding the hand of prosecutrix. 16. Budhri Ram (PW-4) is husband of the prosecutrix. He states in his statement that her wife told her that the appellant held her hand. He shows his ignorance with regard to quarrel on account of Mahua tree between him and the family of the appellant. He further deposed that he was not present at the place of incident and whatever is told by her wife he is deposing before this Court. 17. Kashiram Gupta (PW-5) is the Additional Tehsildar who approved the caste certificate. 18. H. S. Nikunj (PW-6) is the Investigating Officer and supports the case of the prosecution. 19. From analysis of these evidences, it appears that prosecutrix (PW-1) states that when she went to pick the Mahua, the appellant followed and she was held from behind and was being pulled from her waist. Nowhere she states that she was held through his hand. Whereas the Smt. Jamtolhin (PW-3) states that she has seen the incident that the appellant hold the prosecutrix on her hand. The husband (PW-4) also deposed that the prosecutrix informed that she was pulled by hand by the appellant. It is also apparent from record that there was family dispute between the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant. The dispute is with regard to a Mahua tree which is standing on the 8 disputed land and it is also apparent from the record that many people go there to pick the Mahua and apart from statement of Smt. Jamtolhin (PW-3) none of the witness was recorded by the prosecution. In the one hand, the prosecutrix states that she was held from behind and pulled by the waist whereas the eye-witness Smt. Jamtolhin (PW-3) says that she was held by hand. The same story was told by the prosecutrix to her husband when she returned. There is variation in the statement of these witnesses. Apart from this, Smt. Jamtolhin (PW-3) is also relative of the prosecutrix of-course the statement of this witness cannot be discarded simply because she is a relative, however, scrutiny of this witness is required to be done at a higher pedestal. The statement of the prosecutrix does not indicate that even if she was pulled with an intention the outrage the modesty. There is a possibility that there may be some quarrel on account of picking up of the Mahua tree which is also standing on the disputed land amongst the family members of the prosecutrix and the appellant, therefore, it appears that the ingredients of Section 354 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt to the appellant. 20. On the basis of the above, the appeal stands allowed. 21. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 22. The record of the trial Court with copy of this Judgment be sent back for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Bhumika