Lakheshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

¶3

2025:CGHC:52730

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 335 of 2010

¶7

Lakheshwar S/o Panch Kodi, Occuppation-Agriculture / Labour / Egg Shop R/o Village- Uskagudapara, Bakawand, Chowki Bakawand, P.S. Nagarnar, District-Bastar (C.G.)

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station- A.JA.K., Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar (C.G.)

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

29.10.2025

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an I.A. No. 01/2025, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

¶17

However, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally, accordingly I.A. No. 01/2025, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶18

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 06.04.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar, Place- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 183/2007, wherein the said

¶19

2

¶20

Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

¶21

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 324 of I.P.C.	R.I. for 06 months
Under Section 3 (1) (x) of The	R.I. for 06 months with fine amount of
Scheduled Castes And The	Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine,
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention	to undergo additional R.I. for 01
of Atrocities)Act, 1989.	month

¶22

(Both the Substantive Sentences are directed to concurrently)

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Mohan (PW-3) is the member of Scheduled Tribe community and on the date of incident i.e. 29.8.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., he went to the egg shop of accused Lakeshwar to have omelette and at that time present appellant was cooking omelette. complainant- Mohan (PW-3) said to the present appellant that Sukhlal Muriya has asked for omelette of three eggs. The present appellant asked him to have omelette of one egg, on which the complainant adamantly replied he wants omelette of three eggs only. When the present appellant asked that as to who will pay for this, he said that he will pay for this and thereby he poured oil in the hot frying pan (tawa), whereupon the present appellant got infuriated and started abusing him filthily upon his caste and when the complainant asked him not to abuse him on caste, then he started assaulting him with hands and fists and he went further by assaulting him with hot frying pan (tawa) due to which, he sustained burned injuries upon back side of the body. On seeing the assault, the other co-accused persons also came to the spot and assaulted the complainant- Mohan (PW-3) on his various part of the body and also abused him. The eye witnesses of the said incident are Durjan (PW-4), Laxman (PW-5) and Moti Singh (PW6) and they also intervened to rescue the complainant. Thereafter the

¶24

3

¶25

complainant lodged the report at Police Station- A.JA.K. Jagdalpur and on the basis of above report, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex. P/2 for the said offences. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/5, caste certificate produced by the complainant on 28.09.2007 and it was seized vide Ex. P/7, article (frying pan) was seized from the accused Lakheshwar vide Ex. P/6 before the witnesses. On 30.08.2007, medical examination was conducted of the complainant by Dr. R.B.P. Gupta and he gave his report vide Ex. P/1. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

¶26

After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 294, 324, 506-II of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused persons having abjured guilt were subjected to trial.

¶27

In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons. Statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, in their defence the accused adduced one witness.

¶28

The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them, and acquitted the present appellant of offence under Sections 147, 294

¶29

4

¶30

and 506-II of IP C, but thereby convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The evidence of the complainant himself makes it clear that he was the person who initiated the quarrel intentionally by pouring oil in the frying pan (tawa) as the present appellant refused to give him omelette of three eggs. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 are absent in the present case as the complainant himself came to the shop of the present appellant and started the quarrel by pouring oil in the hot frying pan (tawa) and therefore, it cannot be held that the appellant has intention to humiliate the complainant in a public place. However, before trial Court the prosecution has filed only a xerox copy of the temporary caste certificate, as such the prosecution has failed to prove the caste of complainant and also failed to prove this fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and thereby convicted the appellant for the said offences. The statements of complainant and other witnesses are full of omissions and contradictions. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out against the appellant. It is further contended that that the medical evidence has not supported the version of the complainant regarding assault on him with hot frying pan (tawa). He further submits that other offence is also not proved against the appellant. So, the impugned

¶32

5

¶33

judgment is liable to be set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.

¶34

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2010, the appellant is now aged about 40 years, he remained in jail for more than 10 days and he has no criminal antecedents, he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶35

Ex adverso , learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶37

It is apparent from record of learned Trial Court it framed charges against the appellant and other co-accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 324 and 506-II of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After

¶38

6

¶39

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of all the offences levelled against them, but acquitted the present appellant of offence under Sections 147, 294 & 506-II of IPC and thereby convicted him for offence under Section 324 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment.

¶40

Before learned trial Court, the prosecution has filed the caste certificate (Ex. P/7-A) of the complainant (PW-3), which is a xerox copy and heading of the said certificate is mentioned as provisional/temporary certificate and it is noted in this certificate that it was valid only for six months. Though, no permanent caste certificate is issued by the competent officer and the same is not filed by the prosecution.

¶41

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:-

¶42

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.

¶43

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:

¶44

7

¶45

(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.

¶46

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 timeframe and if the applicant is not found to be entitled to the certificate, his provisional caste certificate would be cancelled.

¶47

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.

¶48

In the light of above cited judgment, and in the present case also it is quite evident from caste certificate (Ex. P/7- A) that this is a xerox copy of the provisional/temporary certificate and this certificate was valid for only 06 months and it is further quite evident from the record of learned trial Court that no proper/permanent caste certificate of the complainant (PW-3) issued by the competent officer was filed by the prosecution, as a consequence, prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. So, conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable, as such, findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of

¶49

8

¶50

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶51

As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, I have gone through the evidence of complainant- Mohan (PW-03), who has categorically stated in his deposition against the present appellant that on the date of incident, the present appellant/accused assaulted him by frying pan (tawa) as a result of which, he sustained injuries on various parts of the body. Subsequently, the complainant lodged the written report (Ex.P/3) to the Police Station- A.JA.K, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part.

¶52

Dr. R.B.P. Gupta (PW-1), who examined the complainant- Mohan (PW3), found three injuries on his body and gave his report vide Ex.P/1.

¶53

Independent witnesses namely Durjan (PW-4), Laxman (PW-5) have stated that some quarrel took place between the accused/appellant and the complainant and Dr. R.B.P. Gupta (PW-1) found various injuries on body of the complainant. Thus, the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant punishable under Section 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

¶54

As regards sentence part of the appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC, from perusal of record, it is clear that incident took place in the year 2007, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 10 days and the appeal is pending since 2010 and nearly more than 14 years have rolled by since then, appellant is now aged about 40 years. He has no criminal antecedents, did not misuse the liberty, so granted to him, while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period

¶55

9

¶56

already undergone by him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

¶57

Ex consequenti , the appeal is partly allowed . While acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he is held guilty under Section 324 of IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact.

¶58

The appellant is reported to be in jail, he shall be set at free forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶59

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.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶62

AMIT PATEL

Lakheshwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakheshwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Rukmani Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Jangam @ Vicky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sant Ram and Other Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heera Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sewak Ram Khunte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh