1 - Raju Yadav (Died And Abated) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 14-08-2025 v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Police Station- City Kotwali Bemetara, Tahsil, Civil &
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1187 of 2015 1 - Raju Yadav (Died And Abated) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 14-08-2025. 2 - Gopal Sahu, S/o Birjhu Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Tala, Police Station, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Police Station- City Kotwali Bemetara, Tahsil, Civil & Revenue District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 01/09/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of 2 conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2015 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) & Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Criminal (Atrocities) Case No. 11/2013 whereby the appellants stand convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each. 2. Vide this Court’s order dated 14.08.2025, the instant appeal stands abated with respect to appellant No.1- Raju Yadav. Hence, this appeal is being prosecuted on behalf of appellant No.2- Gopal Sahu. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the time of the incident
Legal Reasoning
in the year 2012, the complainant Smt. Santoshi Kurre, wife of Pancham Kurre, was the Sarpanch of Village Basni and dependent Village Tala. Accused Raju Yadav's wife Smt. Revati Bai was elected to the post of Panch from Ward No. 9 of Gram Panchayat Basni and accused Gopal Sahu's wife Smt. Champabai was elected as Panch from Ward No. 10 of dependent village Tala of Gram Panchayat Basni. Panchs of Gram Panchayat Basni had brought a no-confidence motion against complainant Smt. Santoshi Bai Kurre Sarpanch, which was rejected. Against this order, accused Raju Yadav and Gopal Sahu had filed an appeal before the Court of Collector 3 Office Bemetara, whereby their appeal was rejected on 17.09.2012. After having knowledge of the said order, on 17.09.2012, outside the Collector's office, accused Raju Yadav and Gopal Sahu abused the complainant Smt. Santoshi Bai Kurre in the name of her caste. At the time of the incident, Gyanendra Singh Thakur alias Guddu, Bhulau Prasad Mishra, Ishudas and other Panchs were present. After the incident when the accused Raju Yadav and Gopal Sahu were returning to their home, on the way they met Bihari Lal Sahu near Matka Chowk. Bihari Lal Sahu asked them about their case. The accused told him that the complainant Smt. Santoshi Bai has won but they will not let her sit on the chair of Sarpanch and insulted her by using caste based abuses in a public place. Thereafter, a written report was lodged by the complainant at Police Station City Kotwali Bemetara on 05.10.2012. Subsequently, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 534/2012 was lodged at Police Station City Kotwali Bemetara against the accused Raju Yadav and Gopal Sahu for the offence punishable under Sections 294 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 294 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 4 followed by framing of charges, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, he examined one witness namely Lalit Kumar Lahre as D.W.-1. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and same is liable to be quashed. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, has failed to appreciate the materials available on record in its correct prospective and passed the judgment only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, ought to have appreciated that the basic ingredient of section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 that a person has been humiliated by the other person, not belonging to the scheduled caste/tribe, with an intention to humiliate, has not been proved by the prosecution and therefore the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. The 5 learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, has committed material illegality, because on same set of evidence, the appellant has been acquitted by the learned trial Court of the charge u/s 294 of IPC, but has been convicted u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant does not belong to scheduled caste or tribe and unless this fact is proved, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, ought to have appreciated that, there is inordinate delay of 18 days in lodging the report and delay has not been explained and therefore the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that all the eye witnesses have given different version of the entire episode and same does not tally with the version of the complainant and therefore it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and therefore same deserves to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with. 6 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 294 of IPC and convicted him under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 10. It transpires from the record of learned trial Court that written complaint was filed by the complainant Santoshi Kurre (P.W.-1) on 05.10.2012 and according to which, the date of incident is 17.09.2012 and FIR was lodged on 04.12.2012. prosecution seized photocopy of caste certificate of the complainant as per seizure memo (Ex.P/3) however, prosecution did not file original caste certificate of the complainant. Upon perusal of photocopy of caste certificate of the prosecutrix, it is found that the date of issuance of said certificate is 27.11.2012. Thus, it is clear that after the date of incident i.e. 17.09.2012 the caste certificate was issued in favour of the complainant. 11. This Court vide judgment dated 07.01.2025 passed in CRA No. 219 of 2005 in the matter of Shiromani Vs. State of Chhattisgarh observed in para 11 as under:- 7 11. While dealing with the issue where the caste 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 8 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 the provisional caste certificate of complainant, marked as Ex.P-2, was issued by Tahsildar This caste certificate was issued to 9 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 light of above, in the instant case, it is clear from record that caste certificate of the complainant was issued on 27.11.2012 while as per FIR, the incident of the present case occurred on 17.09.2012, the complainant filed written complaint on 05.10.2012 and FIR lodged by the prosecution on 04.12.2012. Thus, it is clear that before lodging FIR, this caste certificate was obtained by the complainant from tehsildar after the date of incident. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 observed that the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy 10 Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather that officer at Taluk or Mandal Level. 14.Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case and after having gone through overall records, it is proved that the caste certificate has been obtained after the date of incident. Prosecution also did not produce original caste certificate before the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is proved that the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant belongs to scheduled Tribe caste. Hence, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) is not made out against the appellant. Thus, the judgment and judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the alleged offence. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 11 receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. 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 Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV