1 2025:CGHC:11871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 475 of 2005 Lallu Yadav S/o Shiv Ram Yadav aged about 30 years, Residence of Village, Baloda, Police Station Akaltara, District Bilaspur (CG). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Akaltara, O. P. Baloda, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 10/03/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, {Prevention of Atrocities (SC/ST) Act} Durg (Chhattisgarh) in Special Criminal Case No.66/2002, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 294 of IPC Fine of Rs.250/- in default of non payment of fine amount simple imprisonment of 7 days. U/s 295 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.250/- in default of non payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. U/s 3(1)(x) of Prevention of Atrocities (SC/ST) Act Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs.250/- (in default of non payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment for 7 days. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant on the date of incident i.e. 24.07.2002 at about 23.00 hours abused the complainant- Balakram Satnami (PW-1) filthily in order to insult the religion and religious beliefs of a class of citizens of India in village Bachhod by abusing loudly and beating the Jait Stambh by a stick with the deliberate and malicious intent to hurt the religious feelings of that class. Also, not being a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the appellant knowing the complainant- Balakram to be a member of the Scheduled Caste insulted the complainant in public place in name of caste. Therefore, Crime under Sections 294, 295 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act has been registered against him after due investigation charge-sheet was filed. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the charge made against him, and claimed trial. 3 4. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the present appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and award of sentence is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence and material available on record is bad in law. The case against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and material placed before it to its proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction. He further submits that the case under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act is not made out as the caste certificate is not issued by Competent Authority. In support of his submission, he 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 findings of conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial Court are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, no interference therewith is required in this appeal. He also submits that the conviction of the appellant under the SC/ST Act is also well merited, therefore, the appeal has not merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. I have 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 appellant 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-3. PW-1 has simply stated that the Police has seized the caste 4 certificate which is exhibited as Ex.P-3. 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 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-appellant 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) (xii) of the Special Act as the intention on the part of the accused-appellant to humiliate or insult the 5 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 appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges from SC/ ST Act. 11. This Court reached to the second submission whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 294 & 295 of IPC is sustainable in light of evidence available on record. 12. In this context, the statement of Balakram (PW-1) and Jageshwar (PW-2) is material in evidence and in the evidence of PW-1, he has very categorically deposed that it was around 10-11 hours he was near the patio (Chabutara), the accused/appellant abused him with filthy language, threatened to kill him. At the same time, the accused hit the Jait Stambh with the stick due to which the Jait Stambh broke in two-three places. He, Mannu and Anand were there near the Patio (Chabutara). Due to fear they did not tell anything to anybody and did not say anything to the accused. At that time Jageshwar came there, Anandram said that he is destroying our temple, catch him but by then the accused had fled from there. He also stated that on the next day they have gone to Police Station for lodging the report which is Ex.P-1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that The accused was about ten meters away from where he was standing. A society meeting was also going on at that time. The meeting was held for worship. In the meeting there were 4-5 people namely Mannu, Anandram, Jageshwar, Mannu’s wife were present. He had said the police that he was sitting near the Patio (Chabutara). 6 The witness’s statement was read out to him in his report Ex.P-1 that how the matter of sitting near the Chabutara is not mentioned in his report (Ex.P-1), he cannot explain the reason. He do not know whether a general meeting of the village panchayat was held a day before the incident. He do not know that a meeting was held in the village and it was decided that the illegal encroachment has to be removed. It is admitted that Jageshwar is the Sarpanch. It is denied that he had called that meeting. He was not aware that a meeting was held to remove illegal encroachment. Jageshwar is his brother. He is his elder father’s son. Mannu is also his elder father’s son. In the meeting, a decision was passed with the consent of all that the illegal encroachment should be removed which was violated by Balakram and Jageshwar. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the appellant did not abuse anyone by name. 13. Jageshwar (PW-2) also deposed in the line of Balakram (PW-1) and nothing incriminating was brought on record from the statement of this witness. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the parties that Jageshwar (PW-2) is a relative, therefore, his statement cannot be accepted, even this Court does not give any emphasis on the statement of other witnesses but from the statement of the complainant- Balakram (PW-1), the case appears to have been proved, though the seizure witness N. Minj (PW-6) has not supported the case with regard to seizure of Tendu Stick. 15. In light of the above, conviction of the appellant as stated cannot be interfered with. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been acquitted from charges of SC/ST Act, he may be given benefit of probation of Offenders Act and 7 they are resident of same village and after he being granted bail, he has not misused the liberty and appearing regularly before the trial Court. He was 30 years of age at the time of commission of offence. The incident is of the year 2002. After 23 years sending him back to jail would not be truthful. He has served/undergone about 19 days of sentence imposed upon him. Nothing incriminating is brought to the notice of this court that he has not reformed during this period. Nothing significant is on record to suggest that his freedom is detrimental to society at large. Hence learned counsel for appellant submits that the sentence awarded may be reduced to period already undergone by him. He further submits that the benefit of probation of offender’s Act may be extended to him. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Udham and Ors.; (2019) 10 SCC 300 has also examined how the quantum of sentence should be imposed upon the conviction and has held in Paragraphs 12 & 13 as under:- “12.Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, antisocial or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defence, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list). 8 13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach. 17. Considering the law laid down in the above stated judgment and also considering the fact that appellant namely Lallu Yadav was 30 years of age and the incident took place in the year 2002 now 23 years have been passed and the appellant is facing the trial for the last 20 years and he is regularly appearing before the trial Court during trial and even after during pendency of this appeal and he did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and also considering that any negative report of his involvement in any other offence is not brought to the notice of this Court, possibility of his reform can’t be ruled out, therefore, maximum sentence awarded under Sections 294 & 295 of IPC for six months is reduced to period already undergone by him. Fine amount is undisturbed and default sentence is reduced to 3 days instead of 7 days as imposed by learned trial Court. 18. Consequently, the present criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicated above. 19. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 20. 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: 2025.03.19 17:22:48 +0530