Partly allowed

Memlal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2025CRA/819/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 294, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act arising from a 2004 incident of abuse and assault. The court acquitted appellants under the Atrocities Act as the caste certificate was not issued by competent authority, upheld IPC convictions but reduced sentence to period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989; sentences under Sections 294 and 323/34 IPC reduced to period already undergone.

Memlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:1506

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 819 of 2005

¶6

Memlal S/o Laha Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years,

¶7

Kadamlal, S/o Bedram Sahu, aged 36 years,

¶8

Navadha S/o Banau Sahu, All Are R/o Village-Mudapar, Police Chowki - Hasaud, Aged 39 years, PS-Jaijaipur, Distt. JanjgirChampa (CG)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellants : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

09/01/2025

¶17

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2005 passed

¶18

¶19

by the Special Judge, authorized under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.17/2005 whereby whereby each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 294 of Indian Penal	RI for one month.
Code.
Under Section 323/34 of Indian	RI for three months.
Penal Code.
Under Section 3(1)(x) of	RI for six months, pay a fine of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled	Rs.200/-, in default thereof to
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)	suffer additional RI for one month.
Act, 1989.

¶21

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.11.2004 in the morning when all the accused/appellants were getting the paddy crop in their agricultural field harvested by the labourers, Firatram Sahu (PW-1), who is husband of complainant Bhuri Bai (PW-2) objected to it. Thereupon, the accused/appellants abused them in the name of their caste and accused Memlal Sahu pushed Firatram as a result of which Firatram sustained injury on left side of hip and right wrist. At that time, accused Memlal also threatened them to leave the place or else they would be killed. On the report of complainant, FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered. Firatram was got medically examined by Dr. Saroj Kachhap (PW-11). Caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P/3

¶23

¶24

and after recording statements of witnesses and completing the formalities of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 325, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act of 1989") was filed against the accused/appellants.

¶25

Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506, 325/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, to which the accused/appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not examine any witness in defence.

¶26

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in its proper perspective. It is clear that the caste certificate of the victim was not issued by the

¶28

¶29

competent authority but by the Village Sarpanch, so it has no legal sanctity and as such, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out against the appellants. Further, it is clear from the evidence on record that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in relation to offence under Sections 294 and 323/34 of IPC also. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges.

¶30

Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellants is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2004, the appeal is pending since 2005 and the appellants have remained in jail for 08 days and never misused the liberty while on bail, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Sections 294, 506, 325/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting them of the charge under Section 506 of IPC, held them guilty under Sections 294, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989.

¶35

It is not in dispute that in order to prove caste of the complainant, the prosecution filed her caste certificate (Ex.P/3) issued by Village Sarpanch. Except this document, the prosecution did not file any caste certificate of the complainant issued by the competent authority. The complainant belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe ought to be established by unimpeachable evidence and failure of the prosecution to prove the same would lead to acquittal of the accused because filing and proving the caste certificate is a sine qua non to prove the offence under the Act of 1989.

¶36

This Court in CRA No.340/2004 in the matter of Pilla Bai and others Vs. State of CG relying upon the judgment in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 , observed as under:

¶37

“21. The procedure for issuance of caste certificate has

¶38

¶39

been well prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which laid down the forum and procedure for issuance of/assailing caste certificate and the status of candidate. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the aforesaid caste certificate has no evidentiary value, as it has not been issued by competent authority and the prosecution has failed to discharge his burden to prove the caste as discussed above. Apart from this, from the perusal of evidence available on record, it is evident that the appellants have not abused the complainants in filthy language knowing that they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. This can be fortified from the bare perusal of the statement of the victim – Rupnath.”

¶40

In this case also, it is evident that the caste certificate Ex.P/3 was not issued by the competent authority and hence in light of above decision, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. As such, conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is not sustainable and they deserve to be acquitted of the said charge.

¶41

As regards offence under Sections 294 & 323/34 of IPC, it is clear from the statement of PW-1 Firatram, injured, who has categorically stated against the appellants that on the date of incident they abused him filthily and accused/appellant Memlal slapped and pushed him as a result of which he suffered injury on left side of hip as also fracture of leg. He remained firm in his cross-examination and

¶42

¶43

denied all the adverse suggestions of the defence. PW-2 Bhuribai has also supported the statement of injured Firatram.

¶44

PW-11 Dr. Saroj Kachhap examined injured Firatram (PW-1) on 21.11.2004 and found two injuries/abrasions on left knee of simple nature. Though the doctor advised for x-ray vide his report Ex.P/2A, however, the prosecution did not file any x-ray report.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with medical evidence, the act of the appellants make them liable for conviction under Section 294 and 323/34 of IPC. As such, the findings of learned trial Court holding them guilty under the aforesaid sections cannot be faulted with.

¶46

As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2004, the appeal is pending since 2005; the appellants are now aged 60-65 years; they were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that they ever misused the liberty so granted and they have remained in jail for 08 days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced under Sections 294 & 323/34 of IPC to the period already undergone by them.

¶47

¶48

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, they are held guilty under Sections 294 & 323/34 of IPC and are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. They are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC.

¶49

Digitally MOHD signed by AKHTAR MOHD KHAN AKHTAR KHAN

¶50

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶51

Khan

Memlal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Memlal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Prasad And Anr. Vs Nepal Vaidh And Anr.

Shankar Prasad Tiwari Vs Ramnarayan Tiwari

Baldau Singh Thakur Vs Smt. Neetu Singh

Prakash Tiwari Vs Vijay Kumar Bhawani

Jailal Baghel (Died) Vs State of Chhattisgarh