High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 2025:CGHC:29039 NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.02 10:28:03 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 290 of 2016 1 Kameshwar Ahir S/o Rajdhani Yadav Aged About 29 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Ragda, Police Chowki Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. For Respondents/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence 2 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 dated 08/10/2015 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 14/2015 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 354 of the IPC/ U/s 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled (Prevention of Tribes Atrocities) Act, 1989 R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that when on 11/8/2014, the prosecutrix went to call the electrician on the way the appellant caught hold of her and when the she tried to free herself from the clutches of the appellant he started abusing the prosecutrix in the name of her caste and also in the name of her mother & sister and further threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the same, the FIR was lodged. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The caste certificate of the victim was seized vide Article A-1 and the appellant was arrested. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet 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 06 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant 3 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 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 08.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 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 there is no sufficient material available to connect the accused with the crime in question. The learned trial Court without there being any material against the appellant has convicted the appellant. She would submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. 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)(xi) 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 submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 4 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 9. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act it transpires from the record of the trial Court that the prosecution has produced a caste certificate vide Article A1, perusal of which goes to show that it was a temporary certificate & the same was issued on 10.09.2014, which is issued subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 11/08/2014. 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 5 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 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 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 6 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 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. 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 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 (Article A1) 7 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 issued on 10.09.2014 subsequent to the date of incident i.e. 11.08.2014, therefore, the conviction under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act by relying upon Article A1 is not sustainable. 14. As far as conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court has mainly relied upon the statements of PW1 the prosecuterix. 15. The prosecuterix (PW1) herself stated she lodged the report next day because her father was not at home and she also deposed that her uncle and elder sister lives near her house but she did not thought it important to tell them about the incident. She further stated that at the time of incident children where present and they saw the incident, but the prosectuion has not brought any such evidence, 16. Gulal (PW-5) has turned hostile and has deposed in his court statement that he has no knowledge about the incident. 17. Dr. Garima Singh deposed that she examined the prosecutrix and found one injury on the back of the prosecutrix and too of simple in nature. 18. On bare perusal of the statements of the above witnesses and evidence on record, the statement of the victim is also not reliable as she did not disclose the same to her uncle who resides infront of the place of incident and also not raised any alarm, however, as per her own version, there were children present at the time of incident but no one has been examined by the prosecution. 19. Thus from the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the 8 / 8 CRA No. 290 of 2016 prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant has committed alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction under Section 354 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 Gowri/ Jyoti