1 2025:CGHC:34900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17-6-2025 Judgment delivered on : 22-07-2025 CRA No. 725 of 2008 Dhanraj @ Dhannu S/o Goverdhan Damahe, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sitagota, Police Station Baghnadi, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Ku. Kashyap, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Judgment Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.8.2008 passed 2 by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.20/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of IPC. RI for 03 months. Under Section 457 of IPC. RI for 06 months, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer additional SI for one week. Under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. RI for 06 months, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer additional SI for one week. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.9.2006 the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house after latching the door from inside. At around 2 am the accused/appellant knocked at her door but she did not open the door. Thereupon the appellant pushed the door as a result of which the door got unlatched. After entering her house, he sat on her cot and started pulling her towards him by her hand. However, on hue and cry being raised by her, he escaped from there. During investigation, the prosecutrix was got medically examined, spot map was prepared, torn sari and blouse of the prosecutrix and her caste certificate were seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 456, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act 3 of 1989”) was filed against the appellant. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 457, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 against the appellant, which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay without any satisfactory explanation. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the entire prosecution story is highly suspicious. The spot map itself shows that there is no entrance from back side of the house whereas the appellant is alleged to have entered the house from back door. Further, the so-called seizure (Ex.P/3) loses its significance as the same was effected after two months of the incident. It is pertinent to 4 mention here that clothes and caste certificate of the prosecutrix were seized by a same seizure memo whereas prosecutrix admits that seizure of clothes and caste certificate was made on two different occasions. This apart, as per seizure memo, recovery was made in the police station and not from the place of incident. As regards caste of the prosecutrix, the caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar nowhere depicts as to on what basis the same was issued and it is a temporary caste certificate which is valid only for a period of six months from the date of its issuance. This certificate was issued on 4.11.2006 i.e. more than a month after the incident. PW-5 Radhelal, neighbour, has not supported the prosecution case and rather stated that there was a land dispute between the parties and they were not on good terms. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The basis ingredients for attracting the offence under the Act of 1989 are extremely missing in this case. Learned trial Court failed to see that in the given set of evidence, two views are possible and therefore, the one favouring the accused ought to have been taken and he be acquitted of all the charges by extending him benefit of doubt. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the records of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 457, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 09. Before learned trial Court, the prosecution filed caste certificate of Ex.P/4 which is issued by Tahsildar, Dongargarh. It is clear from this certificate that it was issued on 4.11.2006 and as per FIR (Ex.P/1), the incident took place on 28.9.2006 and the FIR was lodged on 30.9.2006. As such, it is evident that this certificate was obtained by the prosecution after the date of incident. It is mentioned in this certificate that the certificate is valid only for six months from the date of issuance. PW-7 Ghasiram Markam, Tehsildar, has admitted the fact that the caste certificate of Ex.P/4 is temporary which is valid only for six months. He also admits that the Tehsildar has no authority to issue permanent caste certificate. He states that without going through the records, he cannot tell as to on what basis the certificate was issued. 10. While dealing with the issue where the caste 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. 6 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 is 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 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, 7 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. 11. 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 8 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.” 12. In light of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that in the present case also the temporary caste certificate was issued more than a month after the incident by the Tehsildar which was valid only for six months from the date of its issuance. Thus, in view of the nature of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the caste of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution 9 has not been able to prove in accordance with law that the prosecutrix was a member of scheduled caste community. As such, no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 is made out against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted of the said charge. 13. PW-1 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident the accused/appellant forcibly entered her house by pushing the door, caught hold of her arms, had scuffle with her and tried to outrage her modesty. During this process, her sari and blouse got torn. She raised alarm for help and when her neighbour coughed, the accused ran away from there. She informed about the incident next day to her father-in-law, Kotwar and two days thereafter lodged the report. She states that as her father-in-law was disinclined to take any action, she went to her parental house and thereafter lodged a report. She states that she is not on good terms with her father-in-law. She admits her signature on the FIR from A to A part. In cross-examination she denies the suggestion of the defence that during Navratri there is hustle and bustle in front of her house. 14. PW-2 father of the prosecutrix and PW-3 daughter of the prosecutrix, supported the statement of the prosecutrix. PW-5 Radhelal has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 10 15. PW-9 Imil Lakda, SDOP, states that during investigation he recorded statements of witnesses Radhelal and Anil, seized torn sari and blouse of the prosecutrix as also her caste certificate vide Ex.P/3 & P/4. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) wherein she has categorically stated as to the manner in which the incident occurred and the act of the accused/appellant; she remained firm in her statement and denied all the adverse suggestions of the defence; the fact that her version is duly corroborated by the evidence of her father (PW-2) and daughter (PW-3), this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and held the appellant guilty under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC. In the given set of evidence, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to fatal for the prosecution case. 17. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008; at present the appellant is aged about 49 years; he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for six days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period 11 already undergone by him while keeping the fine imposed on him by trial Court with default sentence intact. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 is hereby set aside. While maintaining his conviction under Sections 354 and 457 of IPC, the substantive jail sentence thereunder is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him u/s 457 of IPC by learned trial Court with default stipulation shall remain intact. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, he shall furnish a bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court to ensure his appearance before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal being filed against this judgment, and this bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.07.22 16:14:14 +0530