1 CRA No. 70 of 2016 2025:CGHC:56122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 70 of 2016 Girjashanker Giri S/o Madan Giri Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Ujiyarpur, Police Station Podi, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korea, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Podi, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaswat Rai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 18/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/01/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 12/2014 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.20 18:17:32 +0530 2 CRA No. 70 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Korea, C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of the IPC R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500, with default stipulation U/s 506 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500, with default stipulation U/s 3(1)(B-i) of SC & ST Act R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500, with default stipulation All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, a resident of village Ujiarpur, works at the Barbaspur Bank to make customers aware about opening accounts, and she travels from her home to the bank by bicycle. For the past three months, the accused has been harassing the complainant on the way, and despite her objections, he has not stopped to harass her. On 31.12.2012 at about 10:30 a.m., when the complainant was going from her home to the bank, the accused met her on the main road to Tihanpur. He misbehaved with her, caught her hand, and told her 3 CRA No. 70 of 2016 to go with him. When the complainant refused to go with the accused, he slapped her twice and continued threatening to disgrace her. Based on above facts, FIR was registered against the appellant. During investigation, the temporary caste certificate of the victim was seized vide Article A-1 and the appellant was arrested. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. She submits that the incident occurred on 31/12/2012 and the FIR was lodged on 02/01/2013 and such 4 CRA No. 70 of 2016 delay has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the deposition of the prosecutrix suffers from contradiction and omission. The learned trial Court without there being any material against the appellant has convicted the appellant. It is also clear that the ingredients of Special Act are not attracted in this case. The caste certificate is a temporary which is not reliable and by relying upon the said temporary certificate, the conviction of the appellant under Atrocity Act is not sustainable. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(B-i) of the SC/ST Act it transpires from the record of the trial Court that the prosecution has produced a caste certificate vide Article A1, perusal of which goes to show that it was a temporary certificate & the same was issued on 21/06/2013, which is issued subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 31/12/2012. 5 CRA No. 70 of 2016 9. Apart from that, the prosecutrix was in possession of a caste certificate (Article A-2) issued by the Tehsildar, Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh, on 25.09.2009, which was prior to the date of the alleged incident. However, the said caste certificate (Article A-2) was valid only for a period of six months and had expired in the month of March 2010 i.e. much prior to the date of alleged incident. In view of the fact that the incident in question occurred on 31.12.2012, the said document has no evidentiary value and is rendered wholly irrelevant for the present case. 10. The question which arises for consideration before this Court whether the conviction of the accused/appellant under the provision of SC/ST Act is sustainable or not when there is temporary caste certificate available on record. 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 6 CRA No. 70 of 2016 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 7 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 8 CRA No. 70 of 2016 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." 13. In view of the fact that the temporary caste certificate (Article A-1) issued on 21/06/2013 subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 31/12/2012, therefore, the conviction under Section 3 (1) (B-i) of the SC/ST Act by relying upon Article A-1 is not sustainable. 14. As far as conviction of the appellant under Section 354, 323 and 506 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court has mainly relied upon the statements of PW-1 the prosecutrix. 15. PW-1, victim stated in her evidence that on 31.12.2012, at 10.30 am, she was going to the bank from home, when she met the accused on the main road, he started molested her, hold her hand and asked her to come with him. When she refused to go, the accused slapped her and saying that if she would not go, he would insult her right there. Thereafter, she informed her brother about the incident. After coming home, she informed her parents and other people. In cross-examination of para-5, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted that for 4–5 years she used to go out with 9 CRA No. 70 of 2016 the accused in connection with her work. Whenever she passed a class, she would give the textbooks of that class to the accused to read. She admitted that three years earlier she had gone to Kotma with the accused and further she had gone to Manendragarh with the accused for her work, and after completing the work, at the insistence of the accused, she went to Kotma, where the accused’s maternal grandmother’s house is located both of them took meal. After returning from Kotma, they reached their home at Ujiarpur at 7:00 p.m. She had informed her family members that she was going to Manendragarh and had left the house, and she indeed had gone to Manendragarh, but later, at the insistence of the accused, she went to Kotma. In paragraph-6 of her testimony, the prosecutrix (PW-1) admits that in 2013, when the B.A. Final results were declared and her result had not appeared, she went with the accused to Ambikapur to find out about her result. 16. PW-3, brother of victim stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, his sister/victim was on the way to go Barbaspur bank. The accused molested and assaulted his sister. Around 10:30 a.m., his sister called him and informed that the accused was molesting her on the main road in Ujiarpur and had taken away her bicycle and mobile phone. Upon receiving this information, he reached the spot and found his sister, where the accused, was 10 CRA No. 70 of 2016 also present. His sister was crying and narrated the incident to him. 17. From the testimony of PW-1, it becomes evident that her own admissions substantially weaken the prosecution case. Despite alleging of molestation, the prosecutrix has clearly acknowledged in cross-examination that she had been in voluntary and continuous contact with the accused for 4–5 years, frequently travelled with him to Manendragarh, Kotma and even Ambikapur, and used to give him her textbooks for reading. Her admission that she willingly accompanied the accused to different places, including staying and taking meals at his maternal grandmother’s house, and that her family was informed only about her visit to Manendragarh, establishes that their association was cordial and consensual. These circumstances create serious doubt regarding the allegation of sudden molestation on a public road. Apart from that, in the written report (Ex. P-1), the victim categorically stated that after the incident she informed her friend, her parents, and her brother. However, in her Court statement, she improved her version and stated only that she informed her brother immediately, who thereafter came to the spot and altercated with the accused. Thus, there is a clear contradiction between her Court statement and the written report, which creates doubt regarding the version of the victim. As per medical examination report vide Ex.P-11, no 11 CRA No. 70 of 2016 external injury was seen. 18. Thus from the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant has committed alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction under Section 354, 323 and 506 of IPC is also not sustainable. 19. In view of above, the accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 20. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep