Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) v. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajna
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:37296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 673 of 2015 1 – Rajnuram, aged about 63 years, S/o Balduram, R/o Village Aatra, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2 - Devkinandgan @ Banty aged about 28 years, S/o Rajnuram , R/o Village Aatra, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Shivrinarayan @ Golu aged about 23 years, S/o Rajnuram, R/o Village Aatra, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 30.07.2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of 2 sentence dated 30.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case No. 02/2014 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 323/34 of R.I. for 03 months to each with I.P.C. fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 01 month each. U/S 3 (1) (x) of R.I. for 06 months to each with Scheduled Caste fine of Rs. 100/- each, in and Scheduled default of payment of fine to Tribe (Prevention undergo R.I. for 01 month of Atrocities) Act, each. 1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at Police Station-Ambagarh Outpost, the complainant registered an F.I.R. vide Ex. P/01 against the accused persons/appellants to the effect that on the morning of the incident, he went from his house to village Mandera Atmabandha to invite people for a funeral and after giving the invitation he was returning home, at between 7:30 to 8:00 hrs, the complainant was passing by near the house of Rajnu, as the accused persons/appellants noticed the complainant they all came out of their houses and abused the complainant on his caste using filthy language by saying him that you were the one who helped in demolishing our house and thereafter, Rajnu beaten the complainant with a stick which he was holding, Bunty and Golu held the complainant and inflicted blows on him using their fists and threatened him to death. At that time, Jalam Singh and Santram of their village came and rescued him by intervening. 3 3. During the investigation, on the basis of the said report, the medical examination of the complainant was done by the police vide Ex. P/08. After inspecting the place of the incident, the spot map was prepared according to the police vide Ex. P/02 and the spot map prepared according to the Patwari is Ex. P/03. According to the seizure memo Ex. P/05, the caste certificate of the complainant was seized as per Ex. P/04. 4. Thereafter, the accused persons/appellants were taken into custody and the statement of the accused persons/appellants and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Outpost, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and the case was committed to the Special/Sessions Court, Rajnandgaon and from there it was transferred to the Special Court (Atrocities) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, illegal, improper, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. There is no material on record which shows that the ingredient of offence was at all present in the record. No independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the story of the prosecution is wholly unreliable. The prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, she submits that before this Court, the appellants and the complainant filed an application on 11.06.2022 to compound the offence and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants on the basis of compromise and they have also filed compromise deed dated 21.04.2022 and as per this compromise deed, both the parties have entered into compromise. The appellants have remained in jail for 05 days, as such, their compromise may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not compoundable, thus the application for compromise for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 5 Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and this appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the complainant (PW/01) Samay Das, (PW/03) Kumari Oman, (PW/04) Jalam Singh, (PW/08) establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court as regarding conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and is hereby affirmed. The complainant has filed an I.A. No. 03/2022, which is an application for compounding the offence along with the compromise deed dated 21.04.2022 which is annexed and it is mentioned over there that during the pendency of this appeal, the complainant has settled the disputes with the appellants outside the Court without any fear, pressure or coercion, therefore, the complainant wants to close the case against the appellants. 11. Though the complainant and the appellants have entered into compromise, the offence under Section 323/34 is compoundable, as such (I. A. No. 03/2022) is allowed. 12. So far as offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, learned trial Court has rightly found that the accused have filthily abused the complainant uttering on his 6 caste and thereby the appellants are convicted under the Atrocities Act, 1989. It is apparent from the record that the caste certificate vide Ex. P/04 of the complainant is issued by concerned S.D.O., but from perusal of the caste certificate goes to show that it was issued after occurrence of the incident. The incident took place on 05.04.2013 and the caste certificate was issued on 30.08.2013. 13. 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. 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 an application is duly supported with the affidavit and the reason of urgency 7 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. 14. In the light of above judgment, in the instant case also it is clear that the caste certificate was issued by S.D.O. after the date of incident, but the learned trial Court relied on the said certificate and wrongly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, so conviction under the said Section is not sustainable, as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is set aside and the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the said charge. 15. As regards the conviction under Section 323/34 of IPC it is clear that both parties have entered into compromise without any fear, pressure or coercion and also considering the fact that the appellants are facing lis since 2015 i.e., about a decade, and they have already remained in 8 jail for about 5 days. As such, the conviction of the appellants is affirmed, but the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 shall be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. 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 U. K. Raju