1 2025:CGHC:18404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 22 of 2007 Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal Gabhel, aged about 27 years, Occupation- Insurance Agent, R/o. village- Dodki, Police Station & Tahsil- Sakti, District-Janjgir- Champa. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent/State ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.04.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 33/2006, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Under Section 451 of I.P.C. R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months Under Section 506-I of I.P.C. R.I. for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. Under Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months (All the Substantive Sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Suresh Kumar Ajgalle (PW-03) who was a resident of Malkharoda was employed as a Garden Incharge at Dodi Nursery and lived in the nursery with his family members and Ramkumar Kashyap, who was the gardener also lived there. On night of 28.08.2005, he was sleeping with his family after celebrating Janmashtami, then at around 12.00 in the night, Up Sarpanch/appellant was kicking and punching the door of the complainant’s room which was inside the nursery and was abusing him filthily on his caste. Appellant and other persons were also kicking and punching the window door. Thereafter, the appellant in a fit of rage, threw the motorcycle of the complainant on the floor which was parked in front of the house and went near the room of Rajkumar Mali and also abused him and threatened to kill him. On Sunday at about 10.00 am, the appellant entered the house of the complainant which was in the nursery and thereby threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the complainant- (PW-3) lodged a written report at Police Station- Sakti vide Ex. P/2 and on the basis of the said report, the FIR lodged against the appellant vide Ex.P/1. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex. 3 P/6 and caste certificate of the complainant was taken on record. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant after found guilty for the said offences, was arrested. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was led before the court of concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, thereafter, on 09.01.2006, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.) and later on 08.10.2006, it came into existence of Sessions Court, Janjgir as this case being within the jurisdiction of Sessions Court, Janjgir, it was received by this Court and the appellant was put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 451, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. However, in his defence the appellant adduced one witness. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 294 of IPC and has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The judgment 4 of conviction against the appellant are very harsh and not according to law. The appreciation of evidence in regard to the appellant are not proper and not according to law, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because caste certificate of the complainant-- Suresh Kumar Ajgalle (PW-3) was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable. He further submits that other offences are also not proved against the appellant. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 451 & 506-I of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2007, the appellant is now middle aged person, he remained in jail for more than 3 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex-adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the 5 instant appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is vivid from record of learned Trial Court it framed charges against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 294, 451, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellant of offence under Section 294 of IPC, but, thereby convicted and sentenced the appellant for rest of the Sections. As regards conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is apparent from the record of learned trial Court that no caste certificate was produced by the prosecution and only a copy of Service Book (Ex. P/9) of the complainant- Suresh Kumar Ajgalle (PW-3) has been filed by the prosecution. Chandradeo Singh (PW-9) stated that in Ex. P/9 i.e., Service Book of the complainant, caste was mentioned of the complainant as Satnami, Scheduled Caste. In his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he did not issue caste certificate of the complainant- Suresh Kumar Ajgalle (PW-3) and he also did not have personal knowledge of the caste of the complainant, as such, he was not in position to say that the complainant was doing job on the basis of factitious caste certificate. 10. It is quite vivid from record of learned trial Court that no caste certificate of the complainant was filed by the prosecution and only a photocopy of the Service Book (Ex.P/9) was rendered. Moreover, PW-9 admitted that he does not have personal knowledge with regard to the caste of the 6 complainant, as a consequence, prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste. So, conviction under Section(1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable, as such, findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under under Section(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 11. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Sections 451 & 506-I of IPC, I have gone through the evidence of complainant- Suresh Kumar Ajgalle (PW-03), who has categorically stated in her deposition against the appellant that on 27.08.2005, the appellant entered his house with other persons, which was situated in nursery premises, where he started the vandalism, furthermore intimidated him to kill. Subsequently, the complainant lodged the written report (Ex.P/2) to the Police Station- Sakti, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part and on the basis of said report, the Police lodged an FIR (Ex. P/1) against the appellant, in which he admitted his signature on B to B part. Ramkumar Kashyap (PW-02), Kusum Lata (PW-4), Yasoda (PW-5), Meghnath (PW-6) have supported the statement of the complainant. Thus, the conviction of the appellant punishable under Sections 451 & 506-I of IPC is hereby affirmed. 12. As regards sentence part of the appellant for offence under Sections 451, 506-I of IPC, from perusal of record, it is clear that incident took place in the year 2005, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 3 months and the appeal is pending since 2007. At the time of incident, the appellant was aged about 27 years old and nearly more 7 than 18 years have rolled by since then, appellant is now middle aged person, while being on bail, he did not misuse the liberty, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the offences punishable under Sections 451 & 506-I IPC. 13. In the result, the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 451 & 506-I of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 14. Accordingly, the criminal Appeal is partly allowed. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL