1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 547 of 2005 1 - Prahlad Kashyap S/o Buturam Kashyap Aged about 25 years R/o village – Negudih Chowki Nawagarh, P.S.Shivrinarayan, District – Janjgir – Champa (CG) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Shivrinarayan Chowki – Nawagarh, Distt. – Janjgir – Champa (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Neeta Tulsani, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 07/07/2025 Assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 24/06/2005 passed in Special Criminal Case No.39/2004 by the Special Judge constituted under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘trial Court’) Bilaspur, CG, this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the appellant. 2. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated herein below - Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 354 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.250/-. In 2 default of payment of fine, further 1 week S.I. 2. U/s 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’) R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine, further 1 week S.I. All the sentences to run concurrently 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that a report (Ex.P/9) was lodged by the complainant (PW1) in police station – Shivrinarayan, Outpost–Nawagarh against the appellant stating that on 21/10/2003 at about 22:30 hrs. when she gone out of her house answering the nature’s call of her children and thereafter she was entering the house by closing the door, the appellant came and stopped her from closing the door and held her hand and on resistance, held her chest. As the appellant was dragging her by holding her blouse, the blouse got torn, her chain and bangles also got broken. He threatened her of dire consequences. After her husband came, she informed about the incident to him. The incident was also informed to Leelaram and Mohanlal. On the report of the complainant, on 22/10/2003 itself, crime was registered against the appellant under the Special Act. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared, her torn blouse, broken bangles and broken chain were seized. Caste certificate of the complainant and her husband was seized. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, 506 (B) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Special Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. One defence witness was examined. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to conviction of the appellant is bad in law and without proper appreciation of evidence on record. He submits that there is no independent witness to prove the alleged incident against the appellant. He submits that the evidence is available on record which suggest that there was enmity between the husband of the complainant and the appellant on account of loan amount to be paid by her husband. He submits that no independent witness has seen the incident and as such, the 3 statement of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon for holding the conviction of the appellant. He submits that report was lodged on the next day without any proper explanation. He further submits that conviction of the appellant under the Special Act is bad in law as the certificate so exhibited is not issued by the competent authority as prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pilla Bai and ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 3 CGLJ 1. Alternatively, he prays that in the event the appellant is acquitted from charges under the Special Act and his conviction is maintained under Section 354 of IPC, as he has already remained in jail for 7 days, the incident had occurred 22 years back, the fine amount has already been deposited, he is the first offender, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the statement of the prosecutrix is credible, impeccable and of sterling quality. Delay in FIR ipso facto is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. He submits that even if the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant can sustain on the solitary statement of the complainant. She further submits that seizure of torn blouse, broken bangles and chain have already been admitted by the appellant and therefore, it is corroborative piece of evidence which adds credibility to the statement of the complainant. She further submits that the caste certificate has also been admitted by the appellant, therefore, conviction of the appellant under the Special Act is also well merited. In sum and substance, she submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. This Court would like to first deal with the question as to whether conviction of the appellant under the Special Act can sustain the scrutiny of this Court or not. In order to prove this charge, the prosecution has placed reliance on the caste certificate (Ex.P/6) issued by the Tahsildar. This Court in the case of Pilla Bai (supra) relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) in paragraph 21 and 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 4 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.” 9. Apart from this, the prosecutrix has not stated anything that she was subjected to the said offence only on account of she belongs to scheduled caste. In the light of above relying upon the judgment quoted herein above, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under the Special Act cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court and is hereby set aside. 10. This leads to the second question as to whether conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC can sustain the scrutiny of this Court. In order to prove this charge, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. the complainant (PW1) needs to be scrutinised. In her statement before the Court, she has categorically stated that about 1½ years back, at about 10:30 PM she was at her home with her two children. She took out her children to answer nature’s call and when she came back, the appellant entered her house, held her hands, pressed her chest and she resisted. Then the appellant started filthily abusing her and also threatened her for dire consequences. She further deposed that the appellant pulled her blouse, due to which her blouse got torn, thereafter, the appellant ran away. After half an hour, her husband came and she was weeping. On being asked, she narrated the incident to him. She further stated that the incident was informed to Leelaram and Mohanlal. Thereafter, she lodged report in Ex.P/9 and admitted her signature on it from A to A. She also put her signature on the spot map (Ex.P/4). She also happens to prove seizure memo (Ex.P/1) of broken bangles, chain, torn blouse. 11. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. From her cross-examination, the appellant tried to bring on record that he runs a betel (paan) shop and her husband had borrowed some money from him, however she denied that there was any loan of Rs.100/- pending between her husband and the appellant. She denied that the appellant has not held her hand. She also denied that the appellant has not pressed her 5 chest. She denied that she has falsely implicated the appellant. 12. From reading of her statement, it does not appear that she cannot be termed as a sterling witness. The incident had occurred in the night and on the next day, report was lodged. The argument advanced by counsel for the appellant that there is delay in lodging FIR does not hold water as in this kind of cases, sometimes the victim has to gather some courage to lodge such a report. Even otherwise, the report was lodged on the next day which cannot be said to be long delay. Named FIR has been lodged against the appellant, therefore, her statement inspires confidence. Initially, though Mohanlal (PW2) was declared hostile and denied the suggestion that he was informed by the complainant in the night however, during cross-examination by the prosecution, he has also denied statement given in Ex.P/10. Statement of the complainant also finds corroboration by statement of Chetan Madhukar (PW3) who in his statement before the Court deposed that on 21/10/2003, he had gone to the basti and at about 10:30 PM, when he came back, his wife was weeping. On being asked, she informed him that the appellant entered the house, torn her blouse, broke her bangles and chain, filthily abused her and also threatened her of dire consequences. Thereafter, in the morning, the incident was informed to Mohanlal, Sundarlal and Leelaram and then the report was lodged. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination to bring a fact that there was some loan pending between him and the appellant. He also denied that his wife had not informed him about the incident. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of Mannu Lal (PW6) who was an independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. This submission is liable to be rejected as in cases like this, statement of the complainant/victim requires to be scrutinised thoroughly and on such scrutiny, her statement does not appears to be suffering from any shadow of doubts. Even if Mannu Lal (PW6) and Leelaram (PW7) could not make the prosecution case weak or unreliable. 14. In order to sustain conviction under Section 354 of IPC, a criminal force has to be used to outrage the modesty of a woman. From perusal of statement of the complainant (PW1), it is quite vivid that the appellant held her hands, pulled her blouse and pressed her chest. It can safely be inferred that the criminal force used by the appellant was with intention to outrage her modesty. The defence put forth by the appellant does not appear to be correct as no person for a value of Rs.100/- would 6 jeopardize the prestige of a woman particularly his wife. Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 354 of IPC. Therefore, his conviction under Section 354 of IPC is hereby maintained. 15. This leads to the next submission as to whether sentence of 6 months imposed upon the appellant under this Section can be reduced to the period already undergone by him or what would be adequate sentence ? The mitigating circumstances which appears in favour of the appellant is that the incident had occurred on 21/10/2003 and for all these years, he is facing the lis. It does not appear that he misused the liberty and he remained in jail for 7 days. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant involved in any unsocial activities or he had any criminal antecedent. Considering all the aspects of the matter, ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- in addition to the fine amount awarded by the trial Court to be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, 1 week R.I. is imposed. The entire fine amount enhanced by this Court shall go to the complainant (PW1) after due verification in view of provisions of Section 357 of CrPC corresponding Section 396 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The appeal, thus, partly allowed as indicated above. 17. Seized articles may be disposed of in terms of trial Court’s judgment. 18. A copy of this judgment with record be sent back to learned trial Court for information and necessary action. 19. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.07.11 13:21:51 +0530