1 2025:CGHC:20385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 457 of 2007 Tukaram S/o Bodhan Nishad , aged about 20 years, R/o Dhaneli, P.S. Dharsiva, Dist: Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station-Khamtarai, Dist: Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 05.05.2025. 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 02.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 95/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 3 (1) (xii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that (PW-01) victim lives with her mother and younger brother near the ration shop of Punuram at Ranwabhata. She is uneducated and when she was of 10 years old, her father left her mother and started living in Gudiyari with his second wife and the mother of the victim is a labourer and does labour work. When she goes to work, the victim lives in home with her younger brother. Around 7-8 months before the report dated 12.05.2005, Tukaram Nivad of village Dhameli, Ana-Dharsiva, who lives in Disan Vishwakarma’s house in Ranwabhata, used to meet her at the tap and when she used to go to fill water in the tap and the appellant used to meet her there and established physical relationship with her at different places upon luring her by false pretext of marriage. On the date of report, she found herself as 04 months’ pregnant and she disclosed the same to the appellant and suggested him that they should marry soon, however, the accused/appellant refused to marry her. Thereafter, the victim narrated the entire incident to her friend (PW- 03) Amita Bai and mother of (PW-03) was apprised regarding the victim’s grown up stomach and then she along with her mother went to the police station Khamtarai to lodge the report vide Ex. P/06 and then investigation was started and the appellant was taken into custody and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of 3 Cr.P.C. During investigation, spot map (Ex. P/09) was prepared, permission of private part examination of the victim was taken from SDM vide Ex. P/07 and request letter Ex. P/08 was sent to C.M.O. for medical examination who gave the examination report as per Ex. P/03. Another application form Ex. P/10 was also given to the doctor and the report was received as per Ex. C/01. Birth certificate item No. 1, caste certificate Ex. P/04, seizure memo Ex. P/05 were seized. As the appellant was found guilty of the said offence he was taken into custody on 13.05.2005 vide Ex. P/11. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and the case was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for offence under Sections 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (xii) & 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 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 02.05.2007 passed by the 4 learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the facts and material available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear that provisions of SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case and it is also clear that no caste certificate issued by the competent officer was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and convicted the appellant. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It is also clear that the appellant is acquitted of the main offence under Section 376 of IPC, but the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 3(1) (xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 376 of IPC 5 and Section 3(2) (v) & Section 3(1) (xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 3(1) (xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Before the learned trial Court the prosecution has filed caste certificate Ex. P/04 of the prosecutrix, which is issued by the Ward Member Nagarpalika Parishad Birgao, Raipur (C.G.). As such, it is vivid that Ex. P/04 is not issued by any competent officer. 11. 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 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 6 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. 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 7 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.” 12. 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. 12. Considering the overall material and evidence available on record, in the light of the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), it is found 8 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.” 13. In the light of above, it is clear that Ex. P/04 is not issued by any competent officer, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact. It is also clear from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the main offence i.e., Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As such, looking to the caste certificate of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. 14. So finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and the offence under Section 3(1) (xii) is not made out against the appellant. 15. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1) (xii) of SC/ST Act. 16. 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. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent 9 back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju