Shiromani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2005 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under SC/ST Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No.97/2004, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

¶15

2 / 11

¶16

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 294 IPC.	R.I. for 01 months.
Under Section 323 of IPC	R.I. for 03 months.
Under Section 3 (1) (x) of	R.I. for 06 months and fine of
SC/ST Act	Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for one month.

¶17

According to the prosecution, on the date of incident i.e. 28.03.2004 at around 02.45 PM, when complainant Udhoram (PW/1) was in his home, the accused/appellant came infront of his house and started committing nuisance which was objected by the complainant (PW/1), whereupon the accused/appellant extending life threat uttered filthy language including caste remark and humiliated him in public place. Thereafter, the accused/appellant went to his house and came with club and assaulted complainant Udhoram (PW/1) on his head as a result of which, complainant PW/1 sustained injuries on his head. On the very day, at around 04.40 PM, an FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by complainant at police station Baradwar. The complainant was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Center, Baradwar, where he was examined by Dr. Pradhan Singh (PW/3) and have his report under Ex.P/4 noticing one lacerated wound in the size of 3” x 2” x 2” with clotted blood over forehead. The doctor opined that the injury sustained by the injured (PW/1) was

¶18

3 / 11

¶19

simple in nature cause by hard object. During investigation, spot map was prepared under Ex.P/2. Caste certificate of the complainant PW/1 was seized under Ex.P/3, according to which the complainant belongs to member of Scheduled Caste. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’) was filed before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

¶20

3 . In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶21

4 . Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶22

5 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the facts, evidence and law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution story has been concocted and it is artificial just to falsely implicate appellant to give a bad shape to the rivalry. Learned counsel further submits

¶23

4 / 11

¶24

that the evidence of eye-witnesses, complainant’s version do nto corroborate the incident. Independent witness (PW/4) Ram Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also clear that the ingredients of Special Act are not attracted in this case. The case certificate (Ex.P/6) is temporary caste certificate, which is not reliable and on the basis of temporary caste certificate, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not sustainable. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2004 and the instant appeal is pending since 2005, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 45 years and by now he is senior citizen and is bed ridden and during pendency of the appeal he remained in jail for 10 days, thus he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

6 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and no interference is called for by this Court.

¶26

7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court.

¶27

8 . It is apparent from the record of the trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Sections

¶28

5 / 11

¶29

294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 506 of IPC, convicted him under Sections 294, 323 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

¶30

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/1) 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 complainant (PW/1) on the basis of his affidavit and he also stated that he cannot tell if the complainant has given false affidavit.

¶31

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.

¶32

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:-

¶33

6 / 11

¶34

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.

¶35

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:

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

7 / 11

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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 Court in 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 :-

¶42

“11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which has been 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

¶43

8 / 11

¶44

or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather that officer at Taluk or Mandal Level.

¶45

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.”

¶46

Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court, when looked into the present case, the caste certificate was issued after the occurrence of incident and it was valid for only six months. The present is not an exceptional case. The appellant at the time of incident was aged around 45 years and if he claimed to be belonging to member of reserved category (SC), he must have permanent caste certificate duly issued by the competent authority. In the light of above judgment Babulal and Meghnath (supra), in the instant case, it is clear that caste certificate (Ex. P/6) was issued by Nayab Tahsildar after the date of incident only on the basis of affidavit of complainant without submitting the documents as required under law, but learned Trial Court relied on temporary/provisional caste certificate, which was issued by Nayab Tahsildar, Baradwar, though it was only valid for six months and wrongly convicted the

¶47

9 / 11

¶48

appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act. Thus, conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act is not sustainable, as such, findings recorded by learned Trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ ST Act.

¶49

As regards conviction of the appellant under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC, the learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of complainant Udhoram Tandon (PW/1), who has categorically stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 28.03.2004 at around 2.45 PM, when he was in his home, the accused/appellant came and started committing nuisance which was objected by him, thereafter, the accused/appellant uttering caste remark used filthy language, which was objected by him and then the accused/appellant went to his house, came back with club and assaulted on his head, as a result of which he sustained injury on his head and blood was oozing. The evidence of this witness is well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Pradhan Singh (PW/2), who medically examined the complainant and gave his report under Ex.P/4 noticing one lacerated wound of 3 x 2 x 2 cm on forehead with blood clots present. The doctor has also opined that the injury sustained by the complainant was simple in nature and can be healed within one week. That apart, Ram Kumar (PW/4), Janak (PW/5) and Ram Kanhai (PW/6) all have categorically stated that the accused/appellant hurling filthy language assaulted complainant Udho Ram (PW/1) with lathi on his head. Thus, from the aforesaid testimonies of the evidence

¶50

10 / 11

¶51

only inference can be drawn that it is the appellant who assaulted complainant Udho Ram (PW/1) by club on his head.

¶52

The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to Sections 294 and 323 IPC is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as regards conviction of appellants under Sections 294 and 323 IPC.

¶53

As regards the sentence, the incident is of the year 2004, at that time appellant was 45 years of age and now he would be 65 years; the appeal is pending since 2005, the appellant was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he ever misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for about 10 days. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶54

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of appellant under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC, his sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds

¶55

11 / 11

¶56

shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC.

¶57

20. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and

¶58

necessary action.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(Rajani Dubey) Judge