1 2025:CGHC:19353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 995 of 2008 Purshendra Yadav, aged about 29 years, Occupation-Agriculture, R/o Village, Anantpur, Police Station-Makadi, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through:Police Station A.Ja.K. Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 29.04.2025. 1. The appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Session Judge (Atrocities), Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Session Case No.197/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 294 of IPC R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 05 months. U/S 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 05 months. (Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 01.08.2007 at about 9.00 am in the (PW-02) Lakheshwar Baghel’s hotel “Village Bijapur”, Dayalram Netam (PW-01) along with his friends was present, at that time the accused/appellant came there and started abusing Dayalram and his friends and was talking about many irrelevant things. When the friends of Dayalram tried to stop him, then the accused/appellant started using filthy language and threatened him to life by blackmailing him by saying that goons will come, they are just one phone call away and they will finish you off by using pistol. Being blackmailed, (PW-01) Dayalram Netam’s got emotionally hurt and then open fight took place between him and the accused, and at that time the accused/appellant was having his breakfast Idli and he threw that breakfast plate which fell on (PW-01) Dayalram Netam and (PW-03) Lachan Singh. (PW-01) Dayalram Netam was making himself ready to report the incident and that time, the family members of the accused/appellant reached to his home and pressurized him to not to report the incident. However, Dayalram Netam (PW-01) on 11.08.2007 reported about the said incident at A.Ja.K Police Station, Jagdalpur on which the Police Station 3 In-charge C.P. Bara Sub Inspector (PW-05) registered the F.I.R vide Ex. P/1A and thereby registered the Crime No. 27/07 under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant (PW-01) Dayalram Netam, the investigation took place. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/05, caste certificate was seized vide Ex. P/03 and statement of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was taken into custody. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) for offence under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 06 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 did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted to the evidence available on record, hence liable to be set aside. The learned 4 trial Court did not appreciate the provisions of Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, The appellant is now aged about 50 years; he has remained in jail for more than 20 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. 7. 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. 8. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from the statement of complainant Dayalram Netam(PW-01) that he produced photocopy of the caste certificate and the learned trial Court did not mention in Ex. P/03 that it was not tallied with the original caste certificate which was produced before the learned trial Court. In para 3 complainant stated that photocopy of the caste certificate was seized by the police as per seizure memo Ex. P/02 and photocopy is Ex. P/03. 10. (PW-06) D.R.S. Uike Investigating Officer stated that he attested caste 5 certificate of the complainant and seized photocopy and thereby put his signature on A to A part, but it is not mentioned by (PW-06) that in the certificate it was attested by (PW-06) and his signature was only found on A to A part on photocopy of caste certificate. 11. So, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the original caste certificate of the complainant, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and convicted him under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. Looking to the photocopy of the caste certificate and without attesting from the original one, the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. So the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1) (x) is not sustainable. 12. As regards Section 294 of IPC, the complainant and other witnesses have clearly stated that the appellant was fighting with the complainant and was abusing the complainant using filthy language. As such, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 294 of IPC. 13. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2007 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged about 50 years; and the appellant remained in jail for more than 20 days, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the offence under Section 294 of IPC is maintained and he be acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 6 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. While maintaining his conviction under Section 294 of IPC. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 15. 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. 16. 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