1 2025:CGHC:39829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1027 of 2013 1 - Raja Pandey @ Rajkumar Pandey S/o Baburam Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Chatipali Durga Mandir, PS Baramkela Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroj Khan, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No.43/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with default Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.03.2013, complainant lodged the report at Police Station Ajak, Raigarh for the incident taken place on 16.02.2013 alleging that on the date of incident complainant Mayawati Sarthi went to Durga Mandir, Chatipali for worship at that time appellant objected her and abused her on her caste Ghasiya and said that harijan has no right to enter in the temple. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The incident took place on 16.02.2013, whereas the FIR was lodged on 03.03.2013, as such there is delay in FIR, but the same was not considered by the learned Trial Court. The villagers wanted to remove him from the post of pujari, as such false allegation was levelled against him. The learned Trial Court has also not considered the statement of DW-1. The applicant was aged about 62 years at the time of incident despite all these he has wrongly been convicted. Therefore, the appeal deserves 3 to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. As per prosecution, the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Category Ghasiya and relied upon caste certificate (Ex-P/6). PW- 5 Tahsilar A. K. Bhoi stated that he issued caste certificate on 08.04.2013 in favour of the complainant Mayawati. This certificate was temporary, which is Ex-P/6. He admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 8. It is clear from the FIR that as per FIR (Ex-P/4), the date of incident is of 16.02.2013 and the date of FIR was lodged on 03.03.2013 and caste certificate (Ex-P/6) was issued by the Tahsildar temporarily on 08.04.2013. It is clear that this caste 4 certificate was issued by Tahsildar after the date of registration of FIR. 9. While dealing with the issue where the case 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 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/s 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 timeframe 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 5 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.” 10. In view of the above legal proposition, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. The complainant Mayawati stated that when she went to temple for worship, the accused stopped her by saying that he will not allow to perform worshiping to any Gadaine/Ghasnin and the accused expelled her out of temple, then she lodged FIR. In the cross-examination, she admitted that it is true that FIR (Ex-P/1) was not written in her handwriting. 11. PW-2 Vidyawati supported the statement of the complainant. In the cross-examination, she admitted that it is true that people of different castes go to temple for worshiping and nobody was forbaded to perform worshiping. She also admitted that when they reached, Mayawati was standing outside temple. She admitted in para 3 that it is true that for removing accused from the post of pujari, a complaint was made to SDO. 12. Sukho Bai – PW-3 also supported the statement of the complainant, but in cross-examination, she admitted that it is true that when they reached to temple, the accused did not say anything. She also admitted that people of different castes go to 6 temple and they are not denied to perform worshiping. 13. The defence witness Guddu Satnami (DW-1) stated the complainant was not denied to perform worshiping by the accused. This witness stated that he himself belongs to Satnami Caste but he regularly goes to temple on every Tuesday and Saturday and the accused never stopped him from performing worshiping. He also stated that the complainant party are trying to dispossess the accused from pujari post. 14. Thus, it is clear from the statement of all the witnesses that they were trying to dispossess the accused from the post of pujari. It is also clear that the caste certificate was obtained by the complainant after the date of FIR, as such whole case is doubtful, as the prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and also has failed to prove this fact that the accused denied her for worshiping in the temple, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of 7 Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala