1 2025:CGHC:57222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 673 of 2013 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 1 - Premsay S/o Late Dhiraj Say Rajwade, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Bodhar, Police Station Sonhat, Civil and Revenue District. - Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.). 2 - Thakur Prasad S/o Premsay Rajwade, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Bodhar, Police Station Sonhat, Civil and Revenue District. - Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.). 3 - Dharam Say S/o Lalu Prasad Rajwade, aged about 63 years, R/o Village Bodhar, Police Station Sonhat, Civil and Revenue District. - Korea, Distt. Korea (C.G.). ...Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through -Station House Officer, Police of Police Station-Sonhat, District-Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Special Judge Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 07/2012, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of IPC R.I. for 01 month with fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Under Section 506(B) of IPC R.I. for 01 month with fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Under Section 3 (1) (x) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribess (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. R.I. for 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. (Fine amount has already been deposited). (All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Chhotelal and the accused persons/appellants are from the same village. The complainant belongs to Khairwar caste of Scheduled Tribes community, 3 whereas the accused persons/appellants belong to Rajuar caste of backward class community. On February, 2010 the complainant was contesting the election of Vice-Chairman, in which he emerged victorious and the appellant Dharam Say lost the election, from that time itself, the accused persons/appellants held resentment against the complainant. On 06.03.2011, the accused persons/appellants called a meeting of the Rajuar community and it was decided that any person of the village who has a relation with the complainant, or who exhibits good behavior towards him, will have to pay a fine of Rs 1000/-. After this, the people of the village started avoiding any kind of conversation and relationship with the complainant, due to which the complainant felt very detested and he felt so humiliated within. On the evening of 06.03.2011 at about 6 pm, the accused persons/appellants came near the house of the complainant and started abusing him on his caste using filthy language and threatened him to kill by saying to leave the village or else they will remind him of his status. Furthermore, the appellants apprised him of the decision that has been taken in the meeting of Rajuar community which was held by them. Many people of the village gathered near the house of the complainant after hearing to the filthy language and the complainant felt so humbled. Gulab Say and Jaylal are eye witness to the said incident. The complainant lodged report against the appellants in the Police Station- Sonhat, but no action was taken against the appellants/accused persons, as such on 29.03.2011 the complainant gave a written complaint to Police Station- Sonhat and Superintendent of Police- Koriya and again a written report was made to Superintendent of Police Koriya, despite this no action was taken against the accused persons/appellants, due to which the 4 morale of the accused persons/appellants remained unshattered and they went on to threaten the complainant to leave the village. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District-Koriya under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C against the appellants under Crime No. 71/11 and the action was taken. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was led before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur (C.G.) thereafter, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge, Baikunthpur District Koriya (C.G.) and the learned Special Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) and 3(3) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellants and other witnesses were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, in their defence the appellants have adduced no witness. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellants of offence under Sections 3(3)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is against the facts, law and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the testimony of PW/01 who deposed in his deposition that the meeting was held by the Kotwar in the village and he did not go to attend the meeting as there is subsisting enmity between the complainant and appellants with regard to election held at village so possibility of the false implication cannot be ruled out. The prima facie ingredients of Sections 294, 506(B) of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) and Section 3(1)(xv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not be attracted in the present case. The prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, as also none of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are either familiar to the complainant or are relatives of the complainant. The judgment of conviction against the appellants is very harsh and not according to law. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges. 7. Ex-adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 6 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is quite vivid from record of learned Trial Court that learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 294, 506B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) and Section 3 (1) (xv) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of offence under Section 3 (1) (xv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but, thereby convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 294, 506B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. The prosecution has filed caste certificate of the complainant vide Article A-1 which is a temporary certificate issued by the Tahsildar. It is evident from the F.I.R (Ex. P/05) that the date of incident is 06.03.2011 and this caste certificate Article A-1 was issued on 12.02.1999 and its validity was of only for 06 months, however, the prosecution has not filed any permanent caste certificate of the complainant issued by the competent authority. 11. 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 and 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 7 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 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. 12. In the light of above cited judgment, and in the present case also it is quite vivid from caste certificate vide Ex. P/05 that this is an temporary certificate and this certificate is valid for only 06 months and it is further clear from the record of learned trial Court that no proper caste certificate of the complainant issued by the competent officer was filed by the prosecution, as a consequence, prosecution has failed to prove 8 this fact that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. So, conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable, as such, findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them under under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 13. Complainant PW-01 Chhotelal stated that all the accused persons/appellants abused him and threatened him and in his cross- examination he admitted that the police has not found any crime upon investigating and he also admitted that he got lease under the Hareli Saheli Scheme on the government land from the government on which Dharamsai is said to be in possession. He further admits that his daughter-in-law Nirmala fought the election of Sarpanch in which she lost. He denied this suggestion that due to all these enmity, he made false report against the accused persons/appellants. 14. PW-02 Gulab Say, PW-03 Krishna Kumar have supported the statement of the complainant PW-01, but in their cross-examinations, they have admitted that earlier also they have lodged report against the appellant Dharam Say. 15. So, it is clear that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses are not reliable, untrustworthy, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and convicted the appellants of the aforesaid charges. It is further clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the caste of the complainant and also failed to prove this fact that the appellants abused the complainant and threatened him beyond reasonable doubt, as such the findings recorded by the learned trial 9 Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2011 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. 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