1 2025:CGHC:58365 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 - 02-12-2025 - 03-12-2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 280 of 2008 Bhagwat Yadav, S/o Dujram Yadav, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Nirtu, Thana Sarkanda, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board (02nd December, 2025) The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 28.2.2008 passed by the Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act}, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No.03/2008 whereby he stands convicted & sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code. SI for one month. Under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 01 year, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer additional RI for 03 months. Under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. RI for 01 year, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 03 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pm 9.11.2007 when complainant Mohitram Suryavanshi (PW-1) was at his home, the accused was abusing him filthily in the name of his mother and sister, which was objected to by the complainant and others present there and they drove him away. However, on the same day, when the complainant was standing near a cart at around 4-5 pm, the accused abused him filthily in the name of his caste also and made repeated assault on him with a club as a result of which he sustained injuries over his right hand and head. The incident was witnessed by PW-2 Shyamcharan, PW-3 Ramswaroop and PW-4 Rajaram. On the written report of complainant Ex.P/1, he was got medically examined by Dr. Chaturbhuj Mishra (PW-5). Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/2, caste certificate (Ex.P/3) of the complainant was seized, the club from the 3 accused was seized and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 325 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short “the Act of 1989”) was filed against the accused followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence he examined two witnesses. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. Learned trial court failed to appreciate that identification of the seized articles in this case is doubtful. The injuries suffered by the complainant are lacerated wound and simple in nature. He submits that all the material witnesses of the 4 prosecution are interested witnesses but even then there are many omission and contradictions in their statements and they have not fully supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has also failed to prove any motive with the appellant for commission of this offence. He would next submit that learned trial Court also grossly erred in holding him guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 without there being any legally admissible evidence to prove that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. A bare perusal of the caste certificate produced by the prosecution (Ex.P/3) makes it clear that it is issued by Sarpanch of Village Panchayat-Nirtu who is not the competent authority to issue any such certificate. Thus the prosecution failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt rendering the impugned judgment liable to be set aside. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 294, 325 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Act 5 of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under these sections as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 09. It is not in dispute that in order to prove caste of the complainant, the prosecution filed his caste certificate (Ex.P/3) issued by Village Sarpanch. Except this document, the prosecution did not file any caste certificate of the complainant issued by the competent authority. The complainant belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe ought to be established by unimpeachable evidence and failure of the prosecution to prove the same would lead to acquittal of the accused because filing and proving the caste certificate is a sine qua non to prove the offence under the Act of 1989. 10. This Court in CRA No.340/2004 in the matter of Pilla Bai and others Vs. State of CG relying upon the judgment in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94, observed as under: “21. The procedure for issuance of caste certificate has been well prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which laid down the forum and procedure for issuance of/assailing caste certificate and the status of candidate. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the aforesaid caste certificate has no evidentiary value, as it has not been issued by competent authority and the prosecution has failed to discharge his burden to prove the 6 caste as discussed above. Apart from this, from the perusal of evidence available on record, it is evident that the appellants have not abused the complainants in filthy language knowing that they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. This can be fortified from the bare perusal of the statement of the victim – Rupnath.” 11. In this case also, it is evident that the caste certificate Ex.P/3 was not issued by the competent authority and hence in light of above decision, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. As such, conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is not sustainable and he deserves to be acquitted of the said charge. 12. As regards offence under Sections 294 & 325 of IPC, complainant PW-1 Mohit states that on the date of incident the accused abused him filthily in the name of mother and sister and also assaulted him with club as a result of which he suffered injuries. He states that he made a written complaint to the police (Ex.P/1) and the doctor examined him and conducted his x-ray. He admits his thumb impression on the spot map Ex.P/2. PW-2 Shyamcharan, son of the complainant; PW-3 Ramswaroop and PW-4 Rajaram have supported the statement of the complainant and stated that it is the accused/appellant who abused the complainant filthily and assaulted him with club. The defence could not elicit anything from these witnesses to make their evidence doubtful or untrustworthy. 7 13. PW-5 Chaturbhuj Mishra examined the complainant and found a lacerated wound on forehead and advised for x-ray of right arm vide Ex.P/5. PW-8 Dr. GS Kanwar, radiologist, conducted x-ray of the complainant and found fracture of right humerus bone vide Ex.P/6. These witnesses remained firm in the cross-examination. 14. In view of the above unrebutted and consistent ocular and medical evidence it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident the accused/appellant uttered obscene words against the complainant which caused annoyance to him as also to the others, and also assaulted him with club resulting in grievous injury to him. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant u/s 294 and 325 of IPC. Being so, the said findings of learned trial Court need no interference by this Court. 15. As regards the sentence under these sections, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2007, the appeal is pending since 2008; the appellant was at that time aged 28 years and at present he is about 46 years, he was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; he remained in jail for 03 days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if his substantive jail sentence under Sections 294 & 325 of IPC is reduced to the period already 8 undergone by him and a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 325 of IPC is imposed on him with default sentence and the same is directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s 395 of BNSS, 2023. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, he is held guilty under Sections 294 & 325 of IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, he shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 325 of IPC and in default shall suffer additional RI for three months. On such fine being deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the complainant after due verification by learned trial Court as compensation u/s 395 of BNSS, 2023. The fine, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail, however, due to his non- appearance, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him vide order dated 15.10.2025 by this Court. The same is hereby cancelled. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. A copy of this order be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.12.03 15:05:27 +0530