1 - Parma @ Parmanand, S/o Hajaru Ram Patel, Aged about 23 years, R/o v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 03.04.2025 Judgment delivered on: 01.07.2025 CRA No. 491 of 2008 1 - Parma @ Parmanand, S/o Hajaru Ram Patel, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village Kumharwada, Police Station- Bakarkatta, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 25.04.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case No. 69/2007, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of the IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days Under Section 323 of the IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days Under Section 3(1)(x) of the R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- Scheduled Castes & in case of default of payment of fine Scheduled Tribes (Prevention additional S.I. for 15 days of Atrocities Act, 1989) 2. According to the prosecution, the complainant- Samanda Bai, Roop Kunwar Bai, Hirmat Bai and other women were members of the Village Forest Protection Committee. On the date of incident i.e. on 10.06.2007, it was informed that people of village Kumharwada were stealing bamboo and taking it away on a bullock cart. At around 7.00 p.m., as soon as the complainant and other women, stopped the bullock care of the accused Parma who was bringing chopped green bamboo in a bullock cart, he abused complainant Samanda Bai, Roop Kunwar Bai and Hirmat Bai. He also assaulted the complainant Samanda Bai (P.W.-1) with lathi and threatened her of dire consequences and thereafter the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. On the next day, a report of the incident was lodged at Police Station- Bakarkatta, which is situated at a distance of 8 km from the place of occurrence. During investigation, on 13.06.2007, spot map was prepared. The caste certificate of the complainant- Samuda Bai was seized. The 3 membership list was seized from the beat guard as proof of the complainant and other women being members of the Forest Protection Committee. A bamboo stick was seized from the accused/appellant. On the date of incident, complainant- Samuda Bai was medically examined. In the medical examination, simple injuries were found on her chin. The accused was arrested and a charge sheet was filed
Legal Reasoning
before the trial Court against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned trial judge framed the charges under Sections 294, 506(ii), 352, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts available on record. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 4 Act, 1989 are not attracted in this case, hence the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 is absolutely illegal. The learned trial Court committed gross error by not considering the fact that the uncle of the accused/appellant, who was Sarpanch of village Kumharwada, Basantpur had lodged the report against the husband of the complainant i.e. Samanda Bai (P.W.-1) and the member of the Van Samiti and Beat Guard of the Forest Department and only because of said report of the uncle of the accused/appellant, he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused had knowledge about the caste of the complainant, hence the presumption drawn by learned trial Court is not at all correct. Complainant Samanda Bai (PW-1) as well as Roop Kunwar Bai (PW-2) and Hirmat Bal (PW-7) have not stated that the accused was aware about their caste, hence the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 is bad in law. Investigating Officer Ravi Kurrey (PW-9) admitted that no investigation was made regarding illegal transportation and cutting of bamboos, hence in absence of seizure of the bamboos from the accused/appellant, the case of the prosecution appears to be false and concocted. The learned trial Court committed gross error by convicting the appellant without any material
Decision
available on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. To buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on this Court’s order dated 22.01.2021 passed in CRA No. 806 of 2020 in the matter of Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another & order dated 25.04.2019 passed in WPCR No. 13 of 2014 in the matter of Sushil Kumar and State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 294, 506(ii), 352, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellant under Sections 352 and 506(ii) of IPC and convicted him under Sections 294, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the prosecution filed caste certificate (Ex.P/3) issued by Tehsildar, Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and on the basis of affidavit and certificate of patwari, the said caste certificate (Ex.P/3) was issued. 10. Vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed in CRA No. 294 of 2005 in the matter of Kalindhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, this Court held in 11 para 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 6 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 7 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.” 11. In light of above, in the instant case, the caste certificate was issued temporarily while the incident of the present case occurred on 10.06.2007, therefore, it is clear that this provisional caste certificate was obtained from Tahsildar after the date of incident. 8 12.In another case, this Court vide order dated 25.04.2019 passed in WPCR No. 13 of 2014 {Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh} held in paras 6 and 7 as under:- “6. In order to appreciate the dispute, it would be appropriate to consider Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 which reads as under:- ”3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (X) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that there must be intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by a non-Scheduled Caste or a non-Scheduled Tribe member and the insult must have been done in a place within public view. The use of expression "intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate" makes it abundantly clear that the mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence and it must also be established that the accused had the knowledge that the victim is SC/ST and that the offence was committed for that reason.” 9 13. In view of above, in the instant case, it is quite vivid that as per question No. 4, when trial Court asked the accused whether he has the knowledge about caste of the complainants being Gond, he denied the same. in these circumstances, the prosecution is duty bound to prove this fact that the complainants belonged to Scheduled Tribes but in the present case, prosecution has failed to prove the caste of the complainants. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. is not made out against the appellant. 14. So far as conviction under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC is concerned, Smt. Samunda Bai (P.W.-1) and Smt. Roopkunwar (P.W.-2) stated that the accused/appellant assaulted them by stick. Dr. Ghanshyam Singh Thakur (P.W.-8) examined Samunda Bai (P.W.-1) and found simple injuries on her hand and chest and gave his report vide Ex.P/7 in this regard. Thus, the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC are affirmed. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, his conviction under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder by the trial Court are hereby maintained. Since the appellant has already 10 deposited the entire fine amount, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of CrPC. 17. 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. Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge