1 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 2025:CGHC:41534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1585 of 2016 1 - Indrajeet Singh Bedi S/o Jyoti Singh Bedi Aged About 70 Years R/o Adarshnagar, Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravindra Singh Bedi S/o Indrajeet Singh Bedi Aged About 34 Years R/o Adarshnagar, Sitapur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ….Appellants Versus 1 - Sankunwar Bai W/o Nagman Ram Aged About 55 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Amatoli, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Mr. V.K.Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL For Resp. No.1 : None, despite service of notice. (Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) Judgment on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.20 17:13:29 +0530 2 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 18/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/12/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 44/2011 by the learned Special Judge Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 1 month each & fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 1 month each & fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 1 month each & fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each & fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 3(1)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act). Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each & fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act). Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each & fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 2. (a) Facts of the case are that on 25.04.1975, the husband of the Complainant namely; Nagman purchased land bearing Khasra No. 1634/4 admeasuring 0.284 hectares situated at Village Sontarai from Sagardas, Dholibai, and Budhandas by means of a registered sale deed, and consequently obtained possession and ownership thereof, his name also being duly mutated in the revenue records. Ever since, the complainant Sankunwar and her husband had been cultivating the said land. In the year 2000, they sowed Sarna paddy, and on 12.11.2000 at about 8:00 a.m., while harvesting the crop, the accused persons allegedly trespassed into the field, hurled abuses, and assaulted Nagman with bahinga (a wooden stick), causing injuries. When the complainant intervened to protect her husband, accused Ravindra Singh Bedi snatched a sickle from her and inflicted a blow on her left palm, grievously injuring three fingers and causing profuse bleeding, whereupon the accused fled from the spot. (b) On this incident, FIR No. 197/2000 was registered at Police Station Sitapur under Sections 447, 323, 324/34 IPC, but the police, instead of filing a charge-sheet, closed the matter. Thereafter, on 12.09.2010, the complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, whereupon cognizance was taken and offences under Sections 447, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were registered. The accused were arrested and charge-sheeted, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, later transferred to 4 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 the Special Court upon its constitution. Charges under Sections 447/34, 294/34, 323/34, 324/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were framed against the accused, who denied the allegations and claimed false implication. (c) In support of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined, namely Sankunwar Bai (PW-1), Nagman Ram (PW-2), Geetanjali Paikra (PW-3), Patwari Ramkumar (PW-4), Prasad Ram Paikra (PW- 5), and Dr. M. Nikunj Minj (PW-6), and documentary evidence including the sale deed, Collector’s order, caste certificate, revenue records, site map, register, and medical examination report were adduced, whereas the defence examined Parasnath (DW-1) and Indrajit Singh Bedi (DW-2) in support of their plea of innocence. 3. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14/12/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The conviction of the appellants under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is unsustainable, as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that any caste-related abuses were uttered with intent to humiliate the complainant. The dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature relating to agricultural land, for which a civil suit was filed by the Appellant No.1, which is evident from Ex.D/9. Learned counsel would submit that earlier, on the same 5 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 set of allegations, Crime No. 197/2000 was registered, investigated, and culminated into a closure report duly accepted by the trial court. The subsequent prosecution thus amounts to abuse of process of law and as such the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside, and the appeal be allowed accordingly. 5. Per Contra, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution evidence clearly establishes the incident of trespass and assault upon the complainant and her husband, as such the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Despite service of notice, the respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear before this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. PW-1 Sunkunwar (Complainant) deposed that she knows the accused persons present in court; they are father and son. She has agricultural land in Village Sontarai which stands in her husband’s name. Her father-in-law had purchased the said land. At the time of the incident, they had sown crops on this land and she, along with her husband, had gone to harvest it. It was the month of Kartik, in the morning hours. While they had just begun cutting the crop, the accused persons arrived at the spot on a motorcycle and started attacking them. She was beaten with a brick and apart from her, her husband also sustained 6 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 injuries. This witness further deposed that she had lodged a report of the incident at Police Station Sitapur, but no action was taken, therefore she filed a private complaint. In cross-examination, she admitted that the accused had objected them while cutting the crop and that despite such objection, she and her husband continued harvesting. She also admitted that the accused had lodged a report against them and a criminal case was pending, but denied the suggestion that she had assaulted accused Indrajit Singh Bedi with a sickle. She maintained that her injuries were caused when accused Ravindra struck her after snatching the sickle. She denied that the land was purchased by the accused through bank auction and further clarified that only she and her husband were harvesting at the spot. 9. PW-2 Nagman Ram, husband of the complainant, deposed that he has agricultural land measuring a little less than one acre at Village Sontarai, purchased by his father 35–40 years ago from Dholibai, Haricharan and Budhandas. He earns his livelihood by cultivating this land. He belongs to Kanwar caste, which falls under Scheduled Tribe category. On the date of the incident, about 12–13 years ago, he and his wife had gone to harvest the paddy crop in the morning hours. After they had cut some portion of the crop, the accused persons arrived on a motorcycle, abused them with filthy language, and assaulted both of them. Accused Indrajit struck him with a wooden stick (bahinga), causing injury to his hand, while accused Ravindra 7 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 snatched a sickle and assaulted his wife, causing injuries on her fingers when she tried to block the blow. He and his wife then went to the police station to lodge a report and subsequently to the hospital. In cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot state the exact Khasra number of the land as he is illiterate. He denied suggestions that the land was mortgaged to the bank and later auctioned in favour of the accused, or that the standing crop at the time of incident had been sown by the accused. He denied that he and his wife quarreled with or assaulted the accused, or that his wife’s fingers were cut during a scuffle. He admitted that a revenue dispute relating to the land was pending before the revenue court at Sitapur. He further admitted that after the incident the standing crop was cut with a saw, but denied that any criminal case was pending against him in Sitapur on the report of the accused. He also admitted that though the police did not act on his report, he made no complaint to higher authorities. 10. PW6- Dr. M. Nikunj Minj, Medical Officer at CHC Sitapur, deposed that on 12.11.2000 Constable Ramchandra brought injured Sanakunwar Bai, wife of Nagwant Kawar, for medical examination. On examination he found a cut injury extending from the middle finger to the little finger of her left hand on the inner side. In his opinion, the injury was simple in nature, caused by a hard and sharp object, and about 4–8 hours old. He proved his medical report (Ex. P- 9) bearing his signature. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that a “hasia” (sickle) is a sharp weapon and agreed that if a sickle is 8 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 pulled during a scuffle between two persons, such an injury could occur. 11. Ex.P/3 is the caste certificate pertaining to the complainant, having a statutory validity of six months only, thus being temporary in nature. It is pertinent to note that the said certificate bears the date 05/09/2002, which evidently post-dates the incident. 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 9 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 certificate 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 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 10 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 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 10. 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." 14. Therefore, it is apparent from the record that the temporary caste certificate (Ex.P/3) was issued on 05.09.2002, subsequent in point of time to the incident. 15. Apart from this, from the testimony of couple i.e. PW-1 Sunkunwar and PW-2 Nagman Ram, it is evident that the genesis of the dispute was the cultivation of agricultural land at Village Sontarai. PW-1 herself admitted in cross-examination that the accused had objected them while cutting of the crop, but despite such objection she and her husband continued harvesting. PW-2 further admitted that he could not 11 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 state the exact Khasra number of the land and that a revenue case concerning possession was pending before the revenue court at Sitapur. He also conceded that after the incident the standing crop was cut with a saw. These admissions unmistakably show that the quarrel was essentially over title and cultivation of land and not a case of forcible dispossession of a member of the Scheduled Tribe from his land. The ingredients of Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which require proof of wrongful dispossession or occupation with criminal intent, are therefore not satisfied, and the matter, at best, falls within the ambit of a civil or revenue dispute. 16. Equally, the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not borne out from the evidence. PW-1 did not depose about any caste-based abuses being hurled at her, and PW-2 merely made a general statement that he and his wife were abused in filthy language. No specific caste- indicative words have been attributed to the accused, nor is there evidence that any such alleged insult was made in public view or in presence of several persons, which are essential ingredients of the offence. The medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. M. Nikunj Minj only establishes simple injuries, and even the Doctor admitted that such injuries could occur in the course of a scuffle when a sickle is pulled between two persons. Thus, the evidence taken as a whole points towards a mutual quarrel arising out of a pending land dispute and does not establish intentional caste-based humiliation or wrongful dispossession. Consequently, the essential requirements of Sections 12 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act remain unproved, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal under these provisions. 17. Upon a meticulous appraisal of the entire record, it becomes manifest that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The material on record reflects nothing more than a land-related dispute which escalated into a mutual altercation. There is no cogent evidence to indicate forcible dispossession of agricultural land or intentional insult directed at the complainant party on the ground of caste. Allegations of assault arising from a property quarrel, bereft of any specific attribution of caste-based humiliation in public view, are insufficient to attract penal liability under the said provisions. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 18. Conversely, with respect to the offences under Sections 447/34, 294/34, 323/34 and 324/34 of the IPC, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses remains consistent and reliable. PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically deposed that the appellants trespassed in the premises, abused the complainant party in obscene language, and inflicted simple injuries with a brick, stick, and sickle. Their version finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-6, who noted a cut injury compatible with the alleged assault. Minor discrepancies in the depositions are of a trivial in nature and do not 13 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 undermine the substratum of the prosecution case. Thus, the elements of criminal trespass, use of obscene expressions, and voluntarily causing hurt in furtherance of common intention stand firmly established beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 447/34, 294/34, 323/34 and 324/34 of the IPC therefore warrants affirmation. 19. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, particularly the fact that the incident occurred about two and half decades ago; the parties belong to the same village; also considering the fact that in counter case the complainant have been acquitted; and the fact that appellant No.1 is neptuagerain as on date, and that the appellants have not misused the liberty granted by the Court while releasing them on bail, this Court is persuaded to modify the substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the sentence under Sections 447/34, 294/34, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 20. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. While acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, their conviction under Sections 447/34, 294/34, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC is upheld with the modification in sentence as indicated hereinabove. The appellants are reported to be on bail; their bail bonds shall not be discharged forthwith but shall remain operative for a further period of six months in terms of Section 481 of the BNSS. 21. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back 14 CRA No. 1585 of 2016 immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri