1 2025:CGHC:57220 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 01.09.2025 25.11.2025 -- 25.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 688 of 2013 Sumer Singh Rathore, S/o Ghasi Ram Rathore. Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village Chhindpur, P.S.- Kusmunda, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korba C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Aa.JA.K, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh --- State/Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Patel, Advocate. For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgement 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 10.07.2013 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba in Special Sessions Trial No. 31/2012, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of I.P.C. R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. R.I. for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. (Both substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. The fact giving rise to this appeal in short are that the complainant /prosecutrix (PW-1), belongs to Scheduled Caste community, lodged an F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) on 09.06.2012 at about 3 o’ clock at Police Station- A.JA.K, Korba contending that she being an agricultural labour, lives with her husband and two daughters in village Chindpur where also the accused Sumer Singh Rathore resides and the cultivation of his land on lease (adhiya) was looked after and cultivated by the prosecutrix’s husband. On the date of incident i.e., 24.05.2012, the accused came to her house and asked about her husband, then she told that he had gone to the pond to take bath and when the complainant and her daughters went out for defecation; the accused was aware of this fact that the prosecutrix's husband was away from home for a wedding and he was not present, taking advantage of the same, the accused with intent to outrage her modesty grabbed her blouse and held her from 3 behind. The prosecutrix's daughters and villagers at a nearby pond arrived after hearing hue and cry raised by her and on being asked by the villagers, she apprised such incident to them, then the accused was apologizing to the complainant in front of the people who were present. Subsequently, she came to her residence with daughters and after apprising such incident to her husband, accompanied with him came to Police Station- A.JA.K and lodged the report against the appellant. On which, a crime for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3 (1) (xi) of the Act was registered. During the investigation, spot map was prepared, caste & residence certificates were seized of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) and blouse & saree were seized of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) and also statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, 1989. The accused person having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the date of incident is 24.05.2012, while the date of lodging the F.I.R is 09.06.2012, there is delay of about 15 days in lodging the FIR (Ex.P/1) and no plausible explanation has been offered in this regard by her, her husband & daughters. There is no evidence available on record to show that appellant has committed alleged offence with the knowledge and intention to outrage her modesty. There are vital omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix (PW-1), PW-2 and PW-5 Kaleshwar Prasad, who is the independent witnesses has not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the caste certificate has not been issued by the competent authority and the same is not proved by the prosecution in accordance with law, therefore, the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the said charges. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja 5 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1 , and in the matter of Radheshyam Heeralal Kalota vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2 passed by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 10. Prosecution has filed a caste certificate (Ex. P/4) to prove the caste of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1). 11. PW-3 Laxminarayan who is the Assistant Grade-III posted at Tahsil Office, Dipka stated that the caste certificate of the prosecutrix is Ex. P/4 and the copy of the same is Ex. P/4-C, it was issued on 26.09.2012. During his cross-examination,he stated that the application was obtained with the attached documents from Police Station- A.JA.K., 1 (2025) 2 SCC 604 2 2012 CJ (MP) 2034 6 which served as the basis for issuing the caste certificate. 12. It is apparent from F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) that it was lodged on 09.06.2012 and the caste certificate (Ex.P/4) was issued on 26.09.2012. 13. It has been held by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Radheshyam (supra) in paras 8, 9 and 10, which read as under:- “8. True it is during the course of the investigation some caste certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained by the Investigating Officer from the office of the SDO and such certificate was also signed by the Tahsildar but in order to prove that certificate neither the SDO nor Tahsildar has been examined by the prosecution. Apart from this, the dispatch register or the receiving register of the SDO office, Tahsil Office or the police station was neither produced nor proved on the record. In this regard, no proper explanation has been put forth by the prosecution on record and it is settled proposition of law that mere marking the exhibit by unconcerned person with the document is not sufficient to rely such document or to treat such document as admissible document. 9. After deciding the legal position by the apex Court in Madhuri Patil''s case in 1995 in which some guidelines and directions were given to the State Government for issuing the caste certificate and in that connection probably some rules and regulations had been framed by the State then, the authority was bound to issue such certificate in accordance with the directions of the apex Court as well as the 7 concerning rules if the same had been enacted before the registration of the impugned criminal case. It is apparent on the record in this regard no explanation has been put forth by the prosecution on record. 10. It is also settled proposition that unless it is proved that the document was prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations and the procedure prescribed for that purpose the same could not be treated to be admissible. In the case at hand the caste certificate has not been proved accordingly by the prosecution. Then merely on oral testimony of the prosecutrix or supporting witnesses it could not be deemed that the prosecutrix is belonging to the caste covered under the Act.” 14. In the light of above, in the present case also, it is evident that during the investigation, the caste certificate (Ex. P/4) of the complainant/ prosecutrix (PW-1) was obtained by the prosecution agency from the office of Tahsildar, moreover, it is quite evident that this certificate is temporary since its validity is only for six months from the date it was issued and it was not issued in accordance with the rules and regulations and the procedure prescribed for that purpose of issuing caste certificate. Thus, the caste certificate has not been proved accordingly by the prosecution and then merely on oral testimony of the prosecutrix or supporting witnesses it could not be deemed that the prosecutrix is belonging to the caste covered under the Special Act. 15. Complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident i.e., 24.05.2012, she went out for defecation with her daughters when 8 the accused caught hold her quickly from behind, then she pushed him away in her resistence, causing her saree and blouse to tear, leading her to scream. On hue and cry being raised by her, her daughters and villagers from a nearby pond arrived shortly after, and she narrated the whole incident to them, the villagers reacted to the fateful incident by slapping the accused in front of other villagers. Thereafter, the accused was apologizing to those who were present there and then she had lodged the report against the appellant. During her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that a subsisting conflict existed over agricultural rice land with the appellant. 16. PW-2, who is the daughter of the prosecutrix stated that the accused caught hold of her mother’s hand, prompting her and her sister to rush to save her. Then, they raised hue and cry and ran towards the pond, where a few villagers came to help and they slapped the accused a couple of times. 17. PW-5 Kaleshwar Prasad has not supported the prosecution case, therefore the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted his police statement vide Ex. P/7. He himself stated that his friends had told the said incident and he stated his version on that basis. He admitted the suggestion of defence that he did not hear the prosecutrix’s and her daughters’ screams nor did he witness the said incident. 18. PW-6 Sumran Singh (ASI) who registered the F.I.R. on 09.06.2012 at Police Station- A.JA.K. Korba vide Ex. P/1 and identified the thumb impression of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) in Ex. P/1. 19. It is evident from the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1) that the date of incident was 9 24.05.2012 and date of lodging the F.I.R. was 09.06.2012, wherein the cause of delay in lodging the F.I.R. mentioned as “ पत␿ शादी मे䜂 बाहर जाने से वापस आने पर पत␿ सलाह ले कर '’. 20. In the present case only, the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-1) and her daughter (PW-2) have stated against the appellant, while independent witness has not supported the prosecution case, moreover, no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecutrix/complainant (PW-1) regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecutrix admitted this fact that they were having differences with the accused/appellant, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts. The statement of the prosecutrix is not reliable and further, it is also evident that after lodging the F.I.R. (Ex. P/1), the prosecution agency was obtained the caste certificate (Ex.P/4) to implead the accused in Special Act. Thus, prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of the said offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, but learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts minutely and gave thereby wrong findings and thus, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 21. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023., the appellant is directed to furnish the personal bond a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Court concerned 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 10 notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. 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 AMIT PATEL