1 2025:CGHC:20993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 34 of 2014 Shrilal Ahir S/o . Balgovind Yadav R/o. Vill. Barpali, P.S. Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba (C.G) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 07.05.2025. 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Special Session Judge (Atrocity), Korba (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 50/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 294 of IPC R.I. for 01 month. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 U/S 353 of IPC R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for one month. U/S 506 Part – 2 R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for one month. U/S 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for one month. (All substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application i.e., I.A. No. (01/2025) under Section 359 read with Section 528 of BNSS. However, he has not pressed the same. Accordingly, the said application stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident 27.08.2011 at 12:30 PM, the complainant Nepal Singh who was posted as Forest Guard was patrolling along with the Joint Forest Management Committee. While patrolling in the restricted area of Maanguru P-183 which is strictly prohibited for grazing cattle, there they saw that the accused Shrilal was grazing 200 cattle. Thereafter, the accused was stopped from grazing cattle in the restricted area of the forest but he did not listen. Despite being warned several times he did not pay any heed to them and he did not move his cattle. He started plucking leaves from the trees of Bija and started feeding his 3 cattle and when the complainant tried to stop him he started to abuse the complainant in the name of his tribe Gond and threatened to kill him by showing his axe and started pelting stones at them and started to quarrel with the respondent and even tore apart his uniform. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police station Bango, District Korba (C.G.) and the appellant was taken into custody. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba and the case was committed to the Special Session Judge (Atrocity), Korba (C.G.) for offence under Sections 294, 353, 506 Part-II and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, he examined 01 witness in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2013 passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and against the law as well as facts of the case. The appellant has also sustained injury and it is clear from the statement of the defence witness that the complainant provoked the appellant and threatened him to vacate the place. The complainant 4 has sustained only one simple injury as stated by the Doctor. It is also clear that the essential ingredients of SC/ST Act has not been proved by the prosecution as the caste certificate produced by the prosecution is only valid for 06 months and no permanent caste certificate was produced by the prosecution. So the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2011, this appeal is pending since 2014, The appellant is now aged more than 60 years; he has remained in jail for 14 days and he never misused the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, so in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order 25.04.2025 in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 835 of 2008. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 332 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of 5 Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 294, 506(II), 353 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 12. Complainant (PW-02) Nepal Singh, (PW-03) Jeevan Lal and (PW-04) Narendra Kumar have stated against the accused/appellant and (PW- 01) Doctor G.S. Jatre found simple injuries on the chest of complainant (PW-02) Nepal Singh. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 294, 506(II) and Section 353 of IPC. So, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in this conviction of the appellant. 13. As regards the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act of 1989, this Court in the matter of Shailesh Kumar (supra) passed in CRA No. 835 of 2008 held in para 11 which reads as under:- “11. 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.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 6 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 30.06.2001 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, 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 appellant is not found to be entitled to the certificate, his provisional caste certificate would be cancelled. 7 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.” 14. Further, this Court in the matter of Meghnath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Cr.A. No. 822/2002 dated 24.06.2024], referring to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri 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 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. 8 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.” 15. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if we examine the facts and evidence in the present case it is clear from record of learned trial Court that the complainant produced caste certificate Article -I which is issued by Naib Tehsildar on 23.12.2004 and it is written in this certificate that it is valid only for 06 months from the date of issuance. However, the prosecution did not file any permanent caste certificate which is issued by competent authority. Learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and in absence of caste certificate issued by the competent officer for further period, the caste status of the complainant is not proved and the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act is not made out against the appellant. 16. As regards sentence, the incident took place in the year 2011 and this appeal is pending since 2014, the appellant is now aged more than 60 years; and he has remained in jail for 14 days and he never misused their liberty while being on bail, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be 9 served if conviction under Sections 294, 353, 506-II of IPC is maintained and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, while keeping the fine amount imposed on the appellant with default sentence by the learned trial Court intact and he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 17. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, while maintaining his conviction under Sections 294, 353, 506-II of IPC he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount on the appellant with default sentence shall remain as it is. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 18. 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. 19. 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 U. K. Raju