1 2025:CGHC:13103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 885 of 2005 1 - Devendra Yadu S/o Mohan Lal Yadu aged about 22 years 2- Shailesh Yadu S/o Mohan Lal Yadu aged about 20 years Both resident of village Rajpur, police station Magarload, District Dhamtari (CG) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Magarload, District Dhamtari (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 19/03/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in Special Sessions Trial No.113/2004, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of non payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 323 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default of non payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 506- B of IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default of non payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. U/s 341 of IPC Fine of Rs.300/-each in default 10 days simple imprisonment. U/s 294 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/-each in default of non payment of fine amount simple imprisonment of 10 days. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the daughter of the complainant’s brother was raped by accused/appellant Shailesh Yadu whose case is under consideration in Dhamtari Court. After appellant Shailesh Yadu was released on bail, the daughter of Madhav (brother of complainant Dhirsingh) was missing and an enquiry was conducted. It is further case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2004 at about 20.30 hours, the complainant who belongs to Scheduled Tribe informed his brother that accused-appellants were abusing him and a report was lodged in Police Station. When they were passing from the house of accused-appellan Shailesh Yadu, the accused stopped Dujram and Dhirsingh, abused them and threatened to kill them. Accused- Devendra hit them with a stick on the head and Shailesh hit them with a stick on the back. When 3 Dujram interfered he was also assaulted with Lathi. The incident was reported in Police Station Magarload, FIR (Ex.P-5) was registered and investigation was set on motion. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex. P-1) was prepared. The injured Dhirsingh (PW-6) and Dujram (PW-5) were medically examined and their statements were recorded. The Lathi used in the incident was seized from the accused Shailesh Yadu and Devendra Yadu. Caste certificate of Dhirsingh was obtained and both the accused-appellants were arrested. Therefore, Crime under Sections 341, 294, 506-B, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act has been registered against them, after due investigation charge-sheet was filed. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which they denied the charge made against them, and claimed trial. 4. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the present appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. She further submits that as there is previous enmity, a criminal case was registered against accused Shailesh Yadu and which was pending, therefore, just to frustrate the same, the false story has been cooked up and report was lodged against the appellants. She further submits that the case under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act is not made out as the caste certificate 4 is not issued by Competent Authority and also submits that it was issued after the date of incident and it is a temporary one, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on such certificate. She further submits that conviction of appellants under Sections 506-B, 294, 341, 323 of IPC is also bad in law. The ingredient of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 504, 503 of IPC are not fulfilled by the prosecution. Apart from this, Dhirsingh (PW-6) and Dujram (PW-5) gave a different version of incident, therefore, the case against the appellants is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively, she submits that the appellants have remained in jail for about 3 days and the incident is of the year 2004 and the appellants were young boys of 22 & 20 years respectively at the time of commission of offence. She submits that during pendency of the appeal, while they were on bail, they have never misused the liberty granted to them. She submits that by the flux of time they must have reformed in the society and one opportunity may be given to them, therefore, the sentence awarded may be reduced to period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount and awarding compensation to the injured. In support of her submission, she places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Pilla Bai Vs. State of C.G. reported in 2023 (3) CGLJ 1. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if some minor contradiction and omission are there in the statement of Dhirsingh (PW-6) and Dujram (PW-5), it would not make the prosecution case doubtful. He also submits that the conviction of the appellants under the SC/ST Act is also well merited, therefore, the appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed. 5 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the record meticulously with utmost circumspection. 8. The first issue whether the conviction of appellants under the provision of SC/ST Act can stand in the scrutiny of this Court or not? The caste certificate of the complainant is marked as Ex. P-7 and which was issued by Nayab Tahsildar on 31.05.2004 that 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 Nayab Tahsildar 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.” 9. Following the decision of Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (Supra) and in the matter of Pilla Bai (supra) this Court has held as under:- “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 6 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.” 10. From the aforesaid factual and legal position, the conviction of the accused-appellants 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. Even the evidence as a whole does not attract the ingredients of Section 3 (I) (x) of the Special Act as the intention on the part of the accused-appellants to humiliate or insult the complainant merely on account of his belonging to the SC/ST category is absolutely missing in this case. In light of above, particularly in absence of evidence of caste certificate and issuing authority and in light of judgment quoted above, this Court held that prosecution was able to prove the case under the SC/ST beyond reasonable doubt. The accused/appellants are acquitted from the charge of SC/ ST Act. 11. This Court reached to the second submission whether the conviction of appellants under Sections 323, 506-B, 341 & 294 of IPC are sustainable in light of evidence available on record. 12. In this context, the statement of complainants Dhirsingh (PW-6) and Dujram (PW-5) is material in evidence. From perusal of statement of these witnesses, it does not appear that any criminal intimidation was caused, though PW-5 in his statement has very categorically deposed that he was threatened to bury him but the same is missing in his 161 statement. It appears to be an exaggerated statement and nothing has been stated by the other witnesses in this regard that they were subjected to criminal intimidation with a dire consequence or hurt, therefore, appellants are acquitted of charge under Section 506-B IPC. However, Dujram (PW-5) and Dhirsingh (PW-6), in their 7 statement have categorically deposed that the appellant- Devendra stopped them on the way and filthily abused them. However, they do not speak anything against the appellant- Shailesh. Therefore, appellant- Shailesh is also acquitted of charge under Section 341 and 294 of IPC and the conviction of appellant Devendra under Section 341 and 294 of IPC is maintained. The assault made by the appellants by Lathi is also proved by the statement of PW-5 and PW- 6 and also from the statement of Dr. T. R. Dhruw (PW-8). Therefore, their conviction under Sections 323 of IPC is hereby maintained.. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are facing the trial for the last 21 years and they are regularly appearing before the trial Court during trial and even after during pendency of this appeal and they did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court. The appellants have reached to a mature age, their freedom do not appear to be detrimental to society, by this time they must have reformed, this Court is inclined to reduce their sentence while maintaining the conviction of appellant Devendra Yadu under Section 294, 341, 323 of IPC, his sentence under Section 323 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Likewise while maintaining the conviction of appellant Shailesh Yadu under Section 323 of IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Fine amount as imposed upon the appellants is undisturbed and default sentence is reduced to 1 day instead of 15 & 10 days as imposed by learned trial Court. 14. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicated above. 8 15. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The record of the trial Court with copy of this Judgment be sent back for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.26 10:41:44 +0530