1 CRA No. 865 of 2016 2025:CGHC:32363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 865 of 2016 1 Arjun Singh S/o Devkinandan Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Rehada, P.S. Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Civil District Surguja At Ambikapur, Revenue District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 Devkinandan S/o Late Ramdev Singh Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Rehada, P.S. Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Civil District Surguja At Ambikapur, Revene District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Out P.S. Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.17 10:17:42 +0530 2 CRA No. 865 of 2016 11/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2016 passed in Special Session Case No. 25/2014 by the learned Special Judge Surguja (Ambikapur), District- Surguja, under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence For Appellant No. 1 U/s 294 of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine 1 month imprisonment more U/s 323/ 34 of the IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine 1 month R.I. more U/s 324/34 of IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months R.I. more U/s 3 (1) (x) [3 (1) (r)] of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 06 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months R.I. more For Appellant No. 2 U/s 323/34 of IPC 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine 1 month R.I. U/s 324/34 of IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months R.I. more 3 CRA No. 865 of 2016 All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Sentences already undergone to be adjusted 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 17.03.2014, the complainant Kashinath was playing Holi at home with his father Ramdev Ram and wife Savita Devi and two children. The complainant and his wife Savita Devi were in the shade of the house and his children were playing Holi in front of the house. During this time, at about 02:00 pm, the accused Arjun (appellant No. 1) and his father Devkinandan (appellant No. 2) started abusing both the children in the name of caste and obscene language, to which the father of complainant, protested and stopped them from abusing. On hearing Ramdev's voice the complainant and his wife Savita Devi also came, seeing whom the accused uttered vulgar and casteist abuses, and appellant No.2 with the intention to finish Ramdev Ram injured him with a knife in his chest and stomach, and the appellant No. 1 hit him on the head with a stick and injured his left wrist, causing him to fall unconscious. On the very day, an FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by the complainant. 3. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P-3) was prepared. The statement of the witnesses was recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. 4 CRA No. 865 of 2016 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 01.07.2016 has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the injured witness namely Ramdev (PW/5) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and the independent witnesses; memorandum witnesses and seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that there is previous dispute between the parties and hence appellants have been falsely implicated. Thus the appeal may be allowed. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the State has supported the 5 CRA No. 865 of 2016 decision of the trial Court. He has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence ordered by the trial Court appears to be Correct and there is no basis by which any interference is warranted in the appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. As regards to the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 3 (1) (x) {3 (1) (r)} of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act , it transpires from the record of the learned trial court that the prosecution has produced caste certificate (temporary) of victim Ramdev which has been issued on 27.03.2014 and is valid for 6 months where as the date of incident is 17.03.2014, thus the caste certificate has been issued subsequent to the date of incident. 11. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the conviction of the accused/ appellant No. 1 under the provision of SC/ST act is sustainable or not when there is temporary caste certificate available on record that to issued subsequent to the date of incident? 12. 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 6 CRA No. 865 of 2016 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. 7 CRA No. 865 of 2016 (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 was not covered under the circular of 30.6.2001. 8 CRA No. 865 of 2016 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. 13. Further, this Court in the matter of Meghnath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [ Cr.A. No.822/2002 dated 24.06.2024], referring 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. 9 CRA No. 865 of 2016 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.” 14. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court, when looked into the present case, as the temporary caste certificate was issued after the occurrence of incident and it was valid for only six months. The present is not an exceptional case. The victim Ramdev was aged about 70 years at the time of incident and if claims to be belonging to member of reserved category (SC), he must have permanent caste certificate duly issued by the competent authority. In the light of above judgment Babulal (supra) and Meghnath (supra), in the instant case, it is clear that caste certificate was issued by Nayab Tahsildar after the date of incident only on the basis of affidavit of complainant without submitting the documents as required under law, but learned Trial Court relied on temporary/provisional caste 10 CRA No. 865 of 2016 certificate, which was issued by Nayab Tahsildar, though it was only valid for six months and wrongly convicted the appellant No. 1 for offence under Section 3(1) (x) {3 (1) (r)} of the SC & ST Act. 15. Thus, conviction of the accused/appellant No.1 under Section 3(1) (x) {3 (1) (r)} of the SC & ST Act is not sustainable, as such, findings recorded by learned Trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellant No. 1 is acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1) (x) {3 (1) (r)} of the SC & ST Act. 16. Now the question for consideration is whether the appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the victims by dangerous weapons? 17. The victim PW-1 namely Kashinath stated that his children were playing holi in front of his house due to which a quarrel occurred between the appellants and victim’s father namely Ramdev after which the appellants came running to his house. He further stated the accused Arjun Singh had a stick in his hand, with which he hit his father Ramdev Ram on the head. He stated that he was watching and listening to the incident from the door of his house and he also stated that the accused Arjun Singh threw a bottle kept in the courtyard and hit him. He also stated that accused Devkinandan, Upraj Singh and Pramod Singh were also there and they assaulted him and those four people also kicked and punched him and his wife. He further stated that he got head injury due to the assault and his father got back, thigh and head 11 CRA No. 865 of 2016 injury. During the assault, accused Devkinandan hit his father with a knife due to which he got injured in stomach and chest and after the assault, all four of them ran away from there. 18. PW-5 Ramdev, injured victim, deposed in his statement that appellants abused him and beaten him with lathi and knife however he has been declared hostile and in the cross examination he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has also stated in his cross examination that there was previous dispute between the families. 19. PW-2 Savita Devi stated that on the day of Holi the appellants first abused her family in the name of caste and thereafter the accused Devkinandan Singh stabbed her father-in-law in the stomach and chest in the courtyard itself and appellant No. 1 hit her father-in- law on the head with a stick and thereafter they beat her husband as well. 20. PW-6 Dr. T. Sai stated that Ramdev, who was injured was brought to him for examination. On examination, he found that injury no. 1 - there was a torn injury in front of the head in the size of 4 x 3 cm, irregular and fresh bleeding was taking place. Injury no. 2 was a cut injury on the left side of the chest in the size of 7 x 3 cm, which was bleeding regularly and freshly. Injury no. 3 - a torn injury, one cm below injury no. 2 in the size of 5 x 3 cm, which was bleeding regularly and freshly. He further stated that injury no. 1 was caused 12 CRA No. 865 of 2016 by a hard and blunt object and injury no. 2 and 3 appeared to have been caused by hard and sharp objects and X-ray of skull and chest done for the nature of injury. The injured was immediately referred to District Hospital Ambikapur for treatment. The period of the above injuries was 6 hours before the examination. The report given by him in this regard is Ex.P-6. He further stated that on the same date, the injured Kashinath was also brought by the same constable, for examination. During examination, the following injuries: Injury no. 1- there was a swollen injury (bruise) on the upper part of the head in the size of 6 x 4 cm, which was irregular and red and blue in colour and report Ex- P-5 was submitted. According to this witness, the complainant had a slight swelling near the wrist on his left hand and a mark of stick hitting near the elbow and a slight abrasion on the back of his head, slight blood clotting, a slight swelling in the heel of the left foot. All the vital parts of the injured were normal. Apart from this, there were no injuries anywhere else in the body and the injuries were simple in nature. 21. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses, it can be established that the involvement of the accused/ appellants in the crime in question has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by appellate court below as regards conviction of the appellant under Sections 294, 323/34 and 324/34 13 CRA No. 865 of 2016 of IPC. 22. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident is of the year 2014 and further the Doctor who examined the victim has also stated that the injury sustained by the victims were not on the vital part of the body, therefore, in the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused intended to cause grievous hurt to the victim. However, it is proved that the appellant caused the assault to the victim. 23. In view of the above, the conviction imposed upon the appellants under Sections 294, 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC. hereby maintained. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly looking to the fact that the incident was of the year 2014, and the appellants have already remained in jail for 28 days and also the fact that as on date the appellant No.2 is aged about 85 years, at this stage, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants namely Arjun Singh and Devkinandan. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant No.1 is acquitted from the charges under Section 3(1) (x) {3 (1) (r)} of the SC & ST Act. However, their conviction under 294, 323/34 and 324/34 of IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence period is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, total fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each. If the appellants 14 CRA No. 865 of 2016 fails to deposit the said fine amount, they shall suffer additional R.I. for two months each. The fine amount, which has been imposed by the trial Court, if already deposited by the appellants the same shall be adjusted accordingly. The entire fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- - Rs.15,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation. 25. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.. 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. 26. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti