1 2025:CGHC:43021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 954 of 2015 Umendi Loniya S/o Late Anjori Loniya Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Kaya, Police Station - Chakarbhatha, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Ku. Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 25/08/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th July, 2015 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur in Special Case No.35/2014 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. RI for six months, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional imprisonment for two months. Under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code. Pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default thereof to suffer imprisonment for 10 days. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the agriculture fields of complainant Premlal Kurre and accused at Village-Kaya are adjacent. Complainant had purchased the land bearing Khasra No.41/3, area 0.33 acre of the accused last year for a sale consideration of Rs.1,26,000/- and registry of the same was also done. At the time of registry, the accused had deposited document of his field at the registry office. On 3.9.2014 at around 5-6 pm while the complainant was returning to his house from Chakarbhata, the accused met him on the way and despite knowing the fact that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, abused him in the name of his caste as also in the name of his mother and sister filthily and demanded the document of his agriculture field. The accused also slapped him and threatened to kill him if he went to his field. The complainant made a complaint to this effect vide Ex.P/2 and after enquiry FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered against the accused. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared, caste certificate of the complainant Ex.P/1 was seized, 3 statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act of 1989”) which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 7 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. He did not examine any witness in defence. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting him of charge u/s 506 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. Learned trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 without there being evidence to prove that the appellant abused the complainant with intention to insult or humiliate him on the basis of his 4 caste. In fact, there was a previous land dispute between the parties and therefore, the complainant falsely implicated the accused. Most importantly, the caste certificate (Ex.P/1) was issued on 8.9.2014 whereas the incident took place on 3.9.2014 and thus, it is clear that in order to falsely implicate the accused under the Special Act, this certificate was subsequently procured by the complainant. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at all. The findings recorded by learned trial court are not based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the charge u/s 506 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5 10. As regards the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989, it transpires from the record of the learned trial Court that the prosecution produced caste certificate (Ex.P/1) of the complainant which was issued on 8.9.2014. As per the FIR (Ex.P/6), the date of incident is 3.9.2014 and as such, it appears that the caste certificate was obtained after lodging of FIR with intention to implicate the accused under the Special Act. 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 MP, order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2004, 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 6 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 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 7 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. 12. In view of the aforesaid judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, if the facts and evidence of the present case are looked into, it is found that the caste certificate of the complainant was issued after the occurrence of incident. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that there is land dispute between the parties, the possibility of procuring this certificate after the incident to implicate the accused/appellant in a graver offence under the Act of 1989 cannot be ruled out. Being so, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charge by extending him benefit of doubt. 13. So far as offence under Section 294 of IPC is concerned, PW-2 Premlal Kurre states that on the date of incident 3.9.2014 at about 5-6 pm while he was going from Chakarbhata to his village Bohardih, on the way the accused/appellant stopped him and enquired about certain slip pertaining to his land and when he expressed ignorance about it, the accused abused him filthily and also beat him with hands. The above statement of the complainant is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Ganeshram, PW-4 Bhanuprasad Kosle and PW-5 Awadhram. In 8 cross-examination all these witnesses remained firm and reiterated that it is the accused/appellant who abused the complainant filthily. As such, conviction of the appellant u/s 294 of IPC recorded by learned trial Court is just and proper. The appellant was sentenced to fine of Rs.300/- under this section which needs no interference by this Court. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of IPC, his conviction and sentence u/s 294 of IPC are hereby maintained. He has already deposited the fine amount. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today by virtue of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.08.29 14:53:56 +0530