Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.11 18:40:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:22941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 122 of 2016 1 - Manoj Yadav S/o Lalji Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tatijariya, P.S. Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttara For Respondents/State
Legal Reasoning
12. Further, this Court in the matter of Meghnath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Cr.A. No.822/2002 dated 24.06.2024), referring the decision of Hon'ble 6 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 Apex Courtrin the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, held in paras 11 and 12 as under :- "11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which has been 10. followed by this court in the case of Pilla Bai (supra). Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) has specifically observed that the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather that officer at Taluk or Mandal Level. 12. Considering the overall material and evidence available on record, in the light of the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), it is found that the Caste Certificate vide (Ex.P-3) of the complainant was issued by the Village-Sarpanch (PW-6) who is not a competent authority to issue caste certificate. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act) is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt and the same is liable to be set aside." 13. In view of the fact that the temporary caste certificate (EX.P/4) issued on 08/03/2010 subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 22/02/2010, therefore, the conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act by relying upon Ex.P/4 is not sustainable. 14. As far as conviction of the appellant under Section 323/ 149 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court has mainly relied upon the statements of Ramcharan (PW1) and Mahesh (PW7). 15. Ramcharan (PW1) in his court statement has deposed that on the date of incident, the appellant, after getting defeat in the election, abused them and 7 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 subsequently, the appellant along with other accused persons assaulted Mahesh (PW7). This witness has further deposed in paragraph 3 of his deposition that the appellant had also assaulted him. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not sustained any injury on the date of the incident. 16. Mahesh (PW7) in his Court statement has deposed that on the date of incident, when the appellant has got defeated in election, there occurred some dispute between them and subsequently, the report was lodged. In paragraph 4 of his statement, he has categorically denied that the appellant had assaulted the complainant- Ramcharan. He also denied that other co- accused person has assaulted them. In cross-examination at paragraph 7, he has admitted that the appellant and other co-accused have never threatened or abused them. He also admitted that due to anger, he lodged the report. 17. Dr. T. Sai (PW4) has medically examined the complainant (PW1) and Mahesh (PW7). His report is Ex.P/8 & Ex.P/9. During medically examination, he has not found any injury over the body part of the Complainant- Ramcharan. However, he found one abrasion on the right cheek size 2 X1 cm and one brush size 3 X 3 cm on the right leg. 18. On bare perusal of the statements of the above witnesses, this Court finds that though there seems to be a dispute arose between the parties in front of the Panchayat Bhawan after the declaration of election result, the statements of witnesses with respect to assault by the appellant to the complainant as well as to Mahesh (PW6) is concerned, the evidence is contradictory, which also not supported by the medical evidence because the Complainant has stated that the appellant assaulted Mahesh. Whereas Mahesh PW/7 has not stated anything about the assault made by the 8 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 appellant and he has also stated that appellant has not assaulted Ramcharan/Complainant too. 19. From the evidence adduced by the Doctor who conducted the examination upon the injured person, it is evident that there is no injury sustained by the complainant. Though there were two simple injury on the body of the Mahesh (PW7), but this witness has categorically denied that the appellant had not assaulted him. Thus from the aforesaid testimony of the evidence, it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant has committed alleged offence. Hence, the conviction under Section 323/149 of the IPC is also not sustainable. 20. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed. 21. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar
Arguments
: Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/01/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 96/2010 by the learned Special Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction U/s 323/149 of the IPC Sentence R. I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of 2 / 8 U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 CRA No. 122 of 2016 payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.02.2010 at about 10 AM one Mahesh Nageshiya resident of ward No. 6, Gram Panchayat Tatijariya submitted his nomination form for the post of Up Sarpanch and on which the appellant asked said Mahesh Nageshiya to withdraw his nomination form but he did not withdraw the same. On completion of election process, one Satyanarayan Gupta has been elected as Up Sarpanch. Thereafter, the appellant abused one Ramcharan (complainant) in the name of his Caste. The said abuses were uttered before Panchayat Bhawan in front of several persons. The appellant also assaulted him with hand and fist and other accused also assaulted and abused him. On the basis of the same, the FIR was lodged. 3. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. The caste certificate of the victim was seized vide Ex. P/3 and the appellant was arrested. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 147, 323/149, 506 part I of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST Act was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 08 3 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18/01/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. However, he has been acquitted from the charge under Section 147 and 506 part I of the IPC. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the appellant has no intention to commit the offence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court without there being any material against the appellant, he has been convicted. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is evident that the appellant has not assaulted Ramcharan. She would submit that the prosecution story has been concocted and it is artificial just to falsely implicate appellant to give a bad shape to the rivalry. It is also clear that the ingredients of Special Act are not attracted in this case. The caste certificate is a temporary certificate which is not reliable and by relying upon the said temporary certificate, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) is not sustainable. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival 4 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act it transpires from the record of the trial Court that the prosecution has produced a caste certificate vide Ex.P/4, perusal of which goes to show that it was a temporary certificate & the same was issued on 08/03/2010, which is issued subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 22/02/2010. 10. The question which arises for consideration before this Court whether the conviction of the accused/appellant under the provision of SC/ST Act is sustainable or not when there is temporary caste certificate available on record. 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 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 5 / 8 CRA No. 122 of 2016 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 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 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.