2025:CGHC:61291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.706 of 2010 1 - Neeraj Rai S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o North Jhagrakhand, Ward No.4, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya C.G. 2 - Sushil @ Lala (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-10-2025. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Arakshi Kendra Station Jhagrakhand, District Koriya C.G. Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Koriya (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Session Trial No.16/2007, whereby Digitally signed by R NIRALA the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 & 506 (1) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months, RI for 6 months and RI for 1 year, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.12.06 complainant Jai Hind (P.W.-6) lodged a written report mentioning therein that on intervening night of 11/12.12.2006, when he was sleeping in the house at about 12.00 to 1.00 A.M. somebody knocked the door of his house, thereafter he opened the door, he saw that the present appellants were standing on the door with club and rod and assaulted him and also abused him by his caste, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. The ingredients of Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also missing and the caste certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, She submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2010, the appellants remained in jail for more than 20 days, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 has died, whereas the appellant No.1 is presently aged about 40 years and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in CRA No.737/2008 in between Sitaram and others vs State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 24.03.2025 and CRA No.70/2016 in between Girjashanker Giri vs State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 18.11.2025. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 has died. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 452, 323 & 506 (1) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellants. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 452 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 8. It is clear from record of the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has filed Article-B caste certificate. This certificate was issued on 12.10.2000 and it was noted in this certificate that it is valid for only for 6 months from the date of issuance. Thus, it is clear that this certificate was valid only for 6 months from 12.10.2000 and the date of incident is 12.10.2006 and no caste certificate was filed by the prosecution issuing by any Competent Authority from this date in favour of the complainant. 9. This Court in CRA No.70/2016 (supra) held in paras 11 & 12 as under:- “11. 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 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. (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 CRA No. 70 of 2016 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. 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 Courtrin 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 10. 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 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." 10. In view of the above, in the case in hand, the temporary caste certificate (Article-B) was issued on 12.10.2000 in favour of the complainant, whereas the incident took place on 12.12.2006, as such this certificate was issued to prior to 6 years of the incident and it was valid only for 6 months from the date of issuance, therefore, conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by relying upon Article-B is not sustainable. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 11. As far as conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 & 506 (1) of IPC is concerned, it is clear that the complainant Jaihind (PW-6) stated that on the date of incident, the accused threatened him and assaulted him by club and rod. 12. Dr. P. S. Kurre (PW-2) examined the injured and found redness and pain in his left shoulder and gave his report (Ex-P/2). The complainant remained firm in his cross-examination and medical report supported the statement of complainant. Thus, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323 & 506 (1) of IPC, as such their conviction under the said offence is hereby affirmed. 13. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2010, the appellants remained in jail for more than 20 days, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 has died, whereas the appellant No.1 is presently aged about 40 years and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant No.1 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant No.1 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. The appeal is partly allowed. 15. The appellant No.1 is reported to be on bail. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.1 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala