Belsar, Police Station Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh, through In
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:16268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 484 of 2009 1 - Salim Ansari S/o Jahir Ansari, aged about 50 years, R/o village Mahuwadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.). 2 – Sajad Ansari, S/o Salim Ansari, aged about 28 years, R/o village Mahuwadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.). 3 – Jasim Ansari, S/o Alim Ansari, aged about 34 years, R/o village Mahuwadih, P.S. Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.). 4 – Mohd. Jalil S/o Alim Ansari, aged about 36 years, R/o village – Belsar, Police Station Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through In-charge Police Station- Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 07.04.2025. 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and conviction dated 29.04.2009 passed by learned Special District and Session 2 Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 17/2009, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons/appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 3 (1) (v) of S.C. & R.I for 06 months to each appellants S.T. (Prevention of with fine amount of Rs. 200/- to each Atrocities) Act, 1989. appellants and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R. I. for one month to each appellants. (All substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant/ Thibra Ram belongs to Uraon, a Scheduled Tribe, whereas the appellants belong to different caste. The complainant/Thibra Ram was resident of village-Belsar and in Khasra No. 365/15 he is having 1.015 hectares land and on the fateful day of 22.09.2008, he was ploughing his field and preparing it for the cultivation. At the same time, the accused persons/appellants entered his field and stopped him from ploughing the field and they uttered filthy language towards the complainant on his caste, threatened to kill him and beaten him with an intention to humiliate him, and as such the complainant was harassed by the accused persons/appellants. Being humiliated by all these, the complainant lodged F.I.R on the same date i.e., 22.09.2008 before the Police Station- Shankargarh, District Surguja (C.G.). On the basis of the aforesaid information so provided, the crime was registered against all the accused persons/appellants and the investigation was started. 3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, under Sections 3(1) (x) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and, Section 3(1) (v) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with 3 Section 447, 323 of IPC read with Section 34, 294 and 506 (II) of IPC and, thereafter, the matter was committed to the learned Special District and Session Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons/appellants of the aforesaid charges, but convicted them under Section 3(1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 to which the accused persons/appellants abjured their guilt and claimed for trial. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. However, the appellants adduced 02 witnesses in their defence. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the inculpatory charges leveled against them and pleaded their naiveness and false entailment in this case. Hence, this instant appeal filed by the accused persons/appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad, improper and against the law. The learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the contradictory and inconsistent statements made by the complainant (PW-04) Thibra Ram. (PW-05) Nanka and (PW-06) Baiju have stated that there was prior land dispute between the accused persons/appellants and the complainant and, therefore, the learned Special Session Judge has acquitted all the accused persons/appellants under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The learned Special Session Judge has ignored the evidence of Patwari Mangal Singh (PW- 07). It is also clear that the caste certificate of the complainant was not proved. He further submits that as per order dated 21.04.2009, the complainant entered into compromise with the appellants and the learned trial Court allowed the compromise application of the 4 parties and according to the compromise arrived at between them, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons/appellants of charges levelled against them under Sections 447, 323/34, 294 and 506(II) of IPC, but convicted the accused persons/appellants under Section 3(1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The caste certificate of the complainant is not proved by the prosecution and it is clear that the caste certificate so produced, is the temporary caste certificate, as such the offence under the Special Act is not made out. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set-aside, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on this Court’s order dated 22.06.2020 in the matter of Kedarram Janghel v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 953 of 2005, and also in the matter of Shiromani v/s. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 219 of 2005. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minute appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 3 (1) (x), 3 (1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 5 447, 323, 294 and 506(II) of IPC. It is also vivid from the order sheet of the learned trial Court that on 21.04.2009 the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 320(1) (8) of Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and acuqitted the accused persons/appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323/34, 294 & 506 (II) of IPC and the learned trial Court finds that the offence under Sections 3(1) (x) and 3(1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not compoundable. As such, the accused persons/appellants were tried for both the offences and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted the appellants under Section 3(1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. It is evident from the record of the learned trial Court that as per seizure memo (Ex. P/02) caste certificate of the complainant was seized which was issued on 25.09.2008 by the Tehsildar and as per F.I.R the date of incident is 22.09.2008. As such, it is clear that after registration of F.I.R. the caste certificate of the complainant was issued. 11. This Court held in the matter of Shiromani (supra) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 219/2005 judgment dated 07.01.2025 in para 09 which reads as under:- “09. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, it transpires from the record of the learned trial Court that the prosecution has produced caste certificate (Ex. P/6), perusal of which goes to show that it was temporary valid for only 6 months and was issued on 18.05.2004 i.e., after the date of incident i.e., 28.03.2004. Further, complainant Udhoram (PW/01) has stated that he got prepared the caste certificate from Tahsildar which was seized under Ex. P/3. That apart, Chandan Ram Ratre (PW/7) Nayab Tahsildar, also stated that he issued the caste certificate (Ex. P/6) to the 6 complainant (PW/1) on the basis of his affidavit and he also stated that he cannot tell if the complainant has given false affidavit.” 12. This Court held in the matter of Kedarram Janghel(supra) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 953/2005 judgment dated 22.06.2020 in para 18 which reads as under:- “18. So far as the offence alleged under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 1989 is concerned, though caste certificate (Ex. P-1) was produced before the Court but author of that caste certificate (Tahsildar) was not produced as an evidence before the trial Court nor any evidence was given by the prosecutrix or any other witnesses that on the basis of caste of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to the assault. Therefore, the main ingredients of the offence were not proved by the prosecution. No evidence was given by the prosecutrix that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community in her deposition nor by any other witnesses.” 13. In the light of above judgments, and in the present case also it is clear that (PW-04) complainant Thibra Ram, eye witnesses (PW- 05) Nanka and (PW-06) Baiju Ram have stated that when they were working in their agricultural field, at that time the accused persons/appellants came there and objected the complainant from ploughing the field by saying that the land belongs to them and after that the incident took place in which the complainant sustained injuries being beaten up by the accused persons/appellants and then the complainant lodged a report. It is also vivid that for the other offences under Sections 323, 294, 506(II) and 447 of IPC the accused persons/appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Court on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. As such, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the incident occurred on the grounds of complainant’s Special Caste and it also clear that the caste certificate was prepared by the complainant after registration of F.I.R. The learned trial Court did not appreciate all 7 these facts and convicted the appellants under the Special Act. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially this fact that the appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled against them in the main offence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed. As such, findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 14. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 15. 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/- U.K. Raju (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE