1 2026:CGHC:1100-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 388 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, through- the Incharge Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus Mohan Lal Nishad S/o Late Devcharan Nisha, aged about 19 years, R/o- Village Kohrouda, P.S. Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 08/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 No. 28/2015, whereby the accused/respondent Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 though convicted him under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/victim made a complaint in the Police Station Bilha that on 05.06.2015, when she went to attend the nature’s call near bank of Sheonath River. At that time, the accused caught hold of her, made her fall on the ground and without her consent satiated his lust by committing forcible sexual intercourse upon her. On the basis of said complaint, the Police of Police Station Bilha lodged an F.I.R. under Crime No. 120/2015 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC; under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after registration of the offence, the matter was investigated by the Police of Police Station, Bilha strictly in accordance with law. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge- sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of charges punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The prosecution has proved its case by way of adducing documentary evidence with respect to caste certificate of the prosecutrix, which was issued by the competent authority, by which it is clear that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled caste community. Learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the accused/respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. None for the respondent, despite service of notice upon him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused/respondent under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, but acquitted the accused/respondent under 4 Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. The prosecution has filed caste certificate of prosecutrix/victim vide Ex. P/03 which was issued on 16.06.2015 and as per F.I.R. the date of incident is 05.06.2015, so it is clear that this certificate was obtained by the prosecution after the date of the incident. 8. (PW-13) Yugal Kishore Urvasha, S.D.M, Champa stated that he issued this certificate on 16.06.2015 and he admitted his signature on A to A part of Ex. P/03. He admitted in para 03 of his cross-examination that he cannot specify the exact documents the victim submitted with her application to support her claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste. 9. The statement of prosecutrix (PW-08), her mother (PW-07) did not prove this fact that the accused/respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix on this ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Learned trial Court also finds that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the accused committed offence on this ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Learned trial Court convicted the accused/respondent under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is also clear from the record that the caste certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained by the prosecution after the date of the incident. 10. 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:- 5 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. 6 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. 7 11. In the light of above cited judgment and in the present case also, it is clear from the close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses and caste certificate issued by PW-13, was issued after the date of the incident, as such we are of the opinion that the findings recorded under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not proved against the accused/respondent beyond reasonable doubt. So, it is clear that there is no legally admissible or clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against the accused/respondent and the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused/respondent under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 12. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agarwal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju