Ramnath Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CRA No. 771 of 2019

2025:CGHC:42765

NAFR

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.08.25 18:49:11 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶8

1 - Ramnath Kashyap S/o Shri Kunuram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Rewapar, Police Station Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Umashankar Kashyap S/o Shri Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Rewapar, Police Station Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Smt. Vimla Kashyap W/o Shri Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rewapar, Police Station Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Appellants

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge)

¶18

Judgment on Board

¶19

2

¶20

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶21

Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶22

22/08/2025

¶23

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03/04/2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 42/2017 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Distt. Korba (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶24

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 295 of the Indian Penal Code	Simple imprisonment for one
	month with fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulation.
U/s 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous imprisonment for one year & fine of Rs. 100/- each, with default stipulation.
U/s 3 (1) (t) of the Scheduled	Rigorous imprisonment for one
Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of	year each & fine of Rs. 100/- each,
Atrocities) Act, 1989	with default stipulation.
All the sentences were dire	cted to run concurrently.

¶25

Facts of the case are that the complainant Hariprasad Keren, son of Tilak Ram Keren, resident of village Riwapar, Police Station Urga, District Korba, submitted a written application along with members of his community stating that the Gram Panchayat, Riwapar, had allotted land for their community’s Dev-alaya and Jaitkham (जैतखाम ), where a temple and Jaitkham were constructed and religious worship was being performed. It was alleged that the accused persons, namely

¶26

3

¶27

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶28

Ramnath Kashyap, his son Umashankar Kashyap, and his wife Vimla Kashyap, claimed ownership over the said land, removed the flag from the Jaitkham , encroached upon the land, and took possession.

¶29

On the basis of the complaint, an unnumbered case was initially registered at Police Station Urga and subsequently transferred to Police Station Ajak, as the offences were found to be covered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On registration of a numbered case, investigation was conducted, during which sufficient evidence was found against the accused persons. Consequently, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶30

After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before this Court against the accused under Sections 295, 295-A, 294, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(n), and 3(1)(gha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On being explained the charges, the accused denied the allegations, pleaded innocence, and claimed false implication, without leading any defence evidence. Their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶31

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30/04/2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶32

4

¶33

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present case arises out of a civil dispute regarding land where a Jaitkham was erected, and no offence under IPC or the SC/ST Act is made out. The complainant’s version is inconsistent and contradicted by his own witnesses; PW-7 Laxmi Prasad Kurre did not support the prosecution, and PW-8 Mukesh Thakur admitted existence of a land dispute. The caste certificate relied upon was issued after the alleged incident that too the same was temporary, further weakening the prosecution case. There is no evidence of intention to insult religious sentiments or to commit atrocities on account of caste. The appellants have been falsely implicated, and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶35

Per Contra, learned Panel Lawyer would submit that the evidence proves that the accused persons removed the Jaitkham and encroached upon land meant for the complainant’s community worship, thereby attracting offences under IPC and the SC/ST Act. Minor discrepancies in witnesses are natural and do not affect the core incident. The caste certificate establishes the complainant’s status, and the acts of the accused were deliberate and intentional. Hence, the conviction is proper and calls for no interference.

¶36

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

¶37

PW-2 Ganesh Ram deposed that on 03.08.2017, complainant Hariprasad came to his house at village Riwapar and informed him

¶38

5

¶39

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶40

that the Jaitkham situated near Balpur Railway Station had been damaged by one Ramnath. The Complainant thereafter informed other members of the community, and along with them, PW-2 went to inspect the Jaitkham On inspection, they found that the flag and coconut were missing. Feeling insulted, they went to the Sarpanch, who told them it was their community’s matter. Thereafter, they lodged a written complaint at Police Station Urga against Ramnath, He further stated that the land where the Jaitkham is situated is a government land, which had been given by the Sarpanch for the purpose of construction of the Jaitkham .

¶41

In cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he had not personally seen the accused persons damaging or encircling the Jaitkham . He clarified that when they reached the spot, the Jaitkham was standing as it had been fixed earlier, and only the flag and coconut were missing. He also admitted that he did not hear the accused persons giving casterelated abuses or threatening words at that time. He stated that Hariprasad had told him someone had removed the flag and coconut, but he himself had not witnessed the act.

¶42

PW-3 Jaitram has deposed in examination-in-chief that on 03.08.2017 he was informed by complainant Hariprasad and his brother Laxmiprasad that the Jaitkham near Balpur Railway Station had been damaged by accused Ramnath. Thereafter, he along with other members of his community went to inspect the Jaitkham and found it broken, with the flag and coconut missing. They then approached the

¶43

6

¶44

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶45

Sarpanch of village Riwapar and informed him that accused Ramnath had damaged the Jaitkham . The Sarpanch also visited the site and advised them to lodge a report. Accordingly, PW-3 along with other community members lodged a written report at Police Station Urga against Ramnath, his wife, and his son. He further stated that the land where the Jaitkham is situated is government land, earlier occupied by Ramnath, whose house had been demolished pursuant to the order passed by the Collector. The land was thereafter allotted by the Sarpanch for erection of the Jaitkham . On seeing the damaged Jaitkham , the community felt insulted. He admitted that apart from the damage, the accused had not said anything to them at that time.

¶46

In cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that when he reached the spot, the accused persons were not present, and he did not personally see them damaging the Jaitkham. He further admitted that neither Ramnath nor his son Umashankar had abused him or the community by caste name or threatened to kill and bury them, as alleged. He clarified that he only saw the Jaitkham damaged and the flag and coconut missing, but he had not seen anyone removing them.

¶47

PW-4 Dauram deposed that on 03.08.2017, Laxmiprasad Kurre (PW-7) informed him and other community members that the Jaitkham near Balpur Railway Station, village Riwapar, had been damaged. Thereafter, they approached the Sarpanch and informed him about the damage, upon which the Sarpanch advised them to lodge a report. PW4, along with other members of the Satnami community, then went to

¶48

7

¶49

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶50

Police Station Urga and lodged a written complaint against accused Ramnath Kashyap. He admitted that the complaint was made on suspicion, as he did not have full knowledge of the incident. PW-4 further stated that the land on which the Jaitkham was built was government land, allotted by the Sarpanch to their community. He admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident and had only been told later that the accused Ramnath, his wife, and son Umashankar had fenced the Jaitkham site, removed the flag and coconut, and abused the community members with casterelated slurs, threatening to kill them if they continued worship there. He confirmed that the FIR was registered after police inquiry on 08.08.2017. He also stated that the accused belong to the Kashyap caste (OBC), while he and his community members belong to Satnami caste (Scheduled Caste).

¶51

In cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that the incident written in Ex. P-3 did not happen in his presence. He reached the spot only after the alleged occurrence. He conceded that the Jaitkham itself was not broken, only the flag and coconut were missing. He admitted that his statements before the police and court were based entirely on what Laxmiprasad Kurre had told him. He further admitted that he had not seen the accused fencing the site, and did not know who had actually done it. He also conceded that the flag and coconut might have been displaced due to natural causes like wind. He denied the suggestion that the accused had helped in constructing the Jaitkham.

¶52

8

¶53

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶54

PW-5 Hariprashad Kurre deposed that about a year prior to the incident, members of the Satnami community of village Reewa Par had installed a Jaitkham on government land near Balpur Railway Station. On 02.08.2017, he learnt from Laxmiprasad Kurre and Ishwari Kashyap that the accused Ramnath Kashyap, along with his wife and son, had damaged the Jaitkham . On 03.08.2017, when he and other community members visited the spot, they found the Jaitkham broken and noticed the accused fencing the land and planting mango and banana saplings there. When confronted, the accused threatened them using abusive language and said ‘if you speak too much, I will kill and bury you’. The witness stated that the matter was first reported to the Sarpanch, who advised them to approach the police. Accordingly, a written report (Ex.P-3) was lodged at Police Station Urga. The site map (Ex.P-6) was prepared, and his caste and residence certificates were seized (Ex.P-5). The originals were produced in court and marked as Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8. He identified himself and his community as belonging to the Satnami caste (Scheduled Caste), while the accused belong to the Kurmi caste (OBC). He further deposed that damaging the Jaitkham , which is revered like a deity, had gravely hurt the religious sentiments of their community.

¶55

In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was not present on 02.08.2017, but was present on 03.08.2017. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not present at the site. He admitted

¶56

9

¶57

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶58

that the accused had an Indira Awas Yojana house about 200 meters away near a pond, and also that Ishwari Kashyap was constructing a house near the Jaitkham, which was stopped by the Gram Panchayat. He denied the defense suggestion that permission was given to Ishwari Kashyap to build there only to support testimony against Ramnath. He admitted that he had not personally obtained his caste certificate (Ex.P-7) but had asked one Arjun Singh to get it prepared. He denied that he was not a Scheduled Caste member or that the caste certificate was falsely obtained. He further denied that the Jaitkham had not been damaged or that the police had prepared the site map (Ex.P-6) without visiting the spot.

¶59

PW-6 Smt. Ishwari Kashyap, who runs a tea shop near Balpur Railway Station, stated that on 02.08.2017 at about 6:00 p.m., she saw the accused Ramnath, his wife, and son Umashankar damaging the Jaitkham of the Satnami community, removing its bamboo and flag, and abusing the community in casteist terms. She reported this to Laxmiprasad Kurre the same evening.

¶60

In cross-examination, she admitted that the Jaitkham had been erected about 5–6 months earlier and that Ramnath’s earlier house on the same government land had been demolished as encroachment. She further admitted that she herself had also attempted to construct a house on that land. She denied the defence suggestions that she had not witnessed the incident, that her hotel was too far, or that her deposition was false or motivated.

¶61

10

¶62

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶63

PW7- Laxmiprasad Kurre has deposed that a sanitation worker at Balpur Railway Station, stated that on 02.08.2017 around 6–7 p.m., he saw the accused persons damaging the Jaitkham of the Satnami community, uprooting its pole and fencing the spot. The next day, he informed community members, who then went to the Sarpanch and later lodged a report at Urga Police Station. He added that the accused abused the Satnami community with casteist remarks and threatened to kill them if they came again.

¶64

In cross-examination, he admitted he could not recall the exact month or year, nor whether the Jaitkham was established before or after demolition of Ramnath’s house on the same land. He also admitted some encroachment issues in the area, but denied the defence suggestion that the Jaitkham was intact or that he was deposing falsely.

¶65

Ex.P/7C is the caste certificate of the Complainant- Hari Prashad. The certificate itself manifest that it is a temporary caste certificate and has been issued on 30/08/2017.

¶66

PW-9, posted as Naib Tehsildar at Sub-Tehsil Barpali, District Korba since June 2017, deposed regarding issuance of caste and residence certificates. He stated that upon submission of applications with requisite documents through Lok Seva Kendra/Choice Centre, the documents are scanned and uploaded, then verified by his office reader, and thereafter examined by him. After such scrutiny, he digitally signed and issued the certificates. Accordingly, temporary caste certificate (Ex. P-7C) was issued on 30.08.2017 in favour of

¶67

11

¶68

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶69

Hariprasad S/o Tilak Ram, certifying him as Satnami (Scheduled Caste). Similarly, residence certificate (Ex. P-4C) was also issued in his name confirming his residence at Village Reewapar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba.

¶70

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:-

¶71

“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.

¶72

7. The circular issued by General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh Government dated 30.6.2001 with No.F.732/2000/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:

¶73

(1) for seeking admission in an education institute.

¶74

12

¶75

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶76

(2) for applying for a Government job. (3) for appearing in an interview. (4) for applying in a Government scheme.

¶77

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.

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

AIR 1995 SC 94 , held in paras 11 and 12 as under :-

¶81

13

¶82

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶83

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

¶84

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."

¶85

Therefore, it is apparent from the record that the temporary caste certificate (Ex.P/7C) was issued on 30/08/2017, subsequent in point of time to the incident.

¶86

Having considered the record and rival submissions, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellants is unsustainable for multiple reasons. At the outset, it is noticed that the prosecution evidence is primarily based on hearsay and partisan testimony, lacking the degree of certainty required for a criminal conviction. PW-2 Ganesh Ram candidly admitted that he did not witness the appellants damaging the Jaitkham or abusing anyone, and that when he reached the spot, the Jaitkham was standing intact with only the flag and coconut missing.

¶87

14

¶88

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶89

PW-3 Jaitram and PW-4 Dauram also admitted that they reached the place after being informed by others and their statements were based only on what they were told. It is well-settled that hearsay evidence cannot form the foundation of a conviction under criminal law.

¶90

The complainant PW-5 Hariprasad Kurre gave a different version, alleging that the Jaitkham was broken and abuses were hurled. However, this assertion stands contradicted by the categorical admissions of PW-2 and PW-4 that the Jaitkham was not broken at all. Even PW-4 conceded that the missing flag and coconut might have been displaced due to natural causes such as wind that too in the rainy season of the month of August. Such inconsistencies strike at the root of the prosecution story, particularly when no independent witness from the locality has corroborated the allegation of willful damage by the appellants.

¶91

The alleged eye-witnesses PW-6 Ishwari Kashyap and PW-7 Laxmi Prasad are also unreliable. PW-6 herself admitted that she had earlier tried to encroach upon the same land, thereby disclosing an interest adverse to the accused. PW-7 could not even state clearly whether the Jaitkham was erected before or after the demolition of construction made by Ramnath on the disputed land, which further erodes credibility. Their evidence is clearly partisan and cannot be accepted without independent corroboration.

¶92

Equally doubtful is the allegation of caste abuses. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 unequivocally admitted that no caste abuses were made in their

¶93

15

¶94

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶95

presence, while PW-6 and PW-7 gave inconsistent versions. The sole statement of the complainant, in the absence of independent support, is insufficient to prove the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) (now Section 3(1)(r)/(s)) of the SC/ST Act.

¶96

Another serious infirmity lies in the caste certificate relied upon by the prosecution. Ex.P/7C, produced by the complainant, is only a temporary certificate issued on 30.08.2017 valid for six months, whereas the alleged incident occurred earlier on 02/03.08.2017. Thus, on the date of the incident, there was no valid proof of the complainant’s social status.

¶97

The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) has held that caste status must be conclusively verified by the competent authority. In light of the above precedents, Ex.P/7C cannot establish the complainant’s caste status so as to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

¶98

Added to this is the admitted background of land dispute. Evidence shows that the land in question was government land, earlier encroached by Ramnath whose house was demolished, and thereafter allotted for erection of the Jaitkham. This history of dispute supplies a strong motive to falsely implicate the appellants. When coupled with the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR on 08.08.2017 though the incident is said to have occurred on 02/03.08.2017, the delay has not been explained by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons and, as such, possibility of embellishment and concoction cannot be ruled out.

¶99

16

¶100

CRA No. 771 of 2019

¶101

Taken cumulatively, these infirmities generate serious doubt about the prosecution version. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. The trial Court, in overlooking these contradictions, delay and legal deficiencies, committed grave error in convicting the appellants.

¶102

This Court accordingly holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside.

¶103

In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellants are reported to be on bail; their bail bonds shall not be discharged forthwith but shall remain operative for a further period of six months in terms of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶104

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.

¶105

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶106

Rahul

Ramnath Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Kashyap 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

Ankur Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Uma Shankar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaiprakash Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Agrahari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nalnikant Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh