Dismissed¶43

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohan Lal Nishad

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2026ACQA/388/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 388 of 2018; acquittal appeal by State; Section 3(2)(v)/3(ii)(v) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; caste certificate issued after date of incident; probative value of post-incident caste certificate; S.D.M. PW-13 cross-examination; prosecutrix PW-08; Babulal Patel v. State of M.P. relied upon; Section 376 IPC; Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012; FIR Crime No. 120/2015 PS Bilha; Special Judge Bilaspur; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed; Rajani Dubey, J.; Radhakishan Agarwal, J.; judgment dated 08/01/2026.

What did the court decide?

None to the State/appellant; the respondent's acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands upheld. ¶43

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohan Lal Nishad — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the State/appellant; the respondent's acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands upheld.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's acquittal appeal against the respondent's acquittal under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be allowed. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The caste certificate of the prosecutrix/victim (Ex. P/03) was issued on 16.06.2015, whereas the date of incident as per the F.I.R. is 05.06.2015; the certificate was therefore obtained by the prosecution after the date of the incident.

¶30

Key takeaways

PW-13 Yugal Kishore Urvasha, S.D.M., Champa, who issued the caste certificate, admitted in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that he could not specify the exact documents the victim submitted with her application to support her claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste.ratio¶31
The statements of the prosecutrix (PW-08) and her mother (PW-07) did not prove that the accused/respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the respondent having been convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012 by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, in S.C. No. 28/2015). The prosecution's caste certificate of the prosecutrix (Ex. P/03) was issued on 16.06.2015, after the incident of 05.06.2015; the issuing S.D.M. (PW-13) could not specify the documents supporting the Scheduled Caste claim; and the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother did not prove that the offence was committed on the ground of her Scheduled Caste status. Relying on Babulal Patel v. State of M.P. (M.P. High Court, Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2004, order dated 15.05.2024), the Court held that the findings under Section 3(2)(v) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no legally admissible or clinching evidence on that count. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1100-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 388 of 2018

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through- the Incharge Police Station Bilha, DistrictBilaspur, (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mohan Lal Nishad S/o Late Devcharan Nisha, aged about 19 years, R/oVillage Kohrouda, P.S. Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : None.

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agarwal, J.

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per, Rajani Dubey, J.

¶17

08/01/2026

¶18

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 No. 28/2015, whereby the accused/respondent

¶19

¶20

has been acquitted of the charges under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 though convicted him under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/victim made a complaint in the Police Station Bilha that on 05.06.2015, when she went to attend the nature’s call near bank of Sheonath River. At that time, the accused caught hold of her, made her fall on the ground and without her consent satiated his lust by committing forcible sexual intercourse upon her. On the basis of said complaint, the Police of Police Station Bilha lodged an F.I.R. under Crime No. 120/2015 for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC; under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after registration of the offence, the matter was investigated by the Police of Police Station, Bilha strictly in accordance with law. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the chargesheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of charges punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, against which the present appeal has been filed by the State/appellant.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the material available on record. Learned trial Court has given grandness to minor contradictions and omissions and passed the impugned judgment which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. The prosecution has proved its case by way of adducing documentary evidence with respect to caste certificate of the prosecutrix, which was issued by the competent authority, by which it is clear that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled caste community. Learned trial Court overlooked the case of the prosecution and evidence against the accused/respondent by which the case of the prosecution is fully established against him beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

¶24

¶25

None for the respondent, despite service of notice upon him.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶27

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused/respondent under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, but acquitted the accused/respondent under

¶28

¶29

Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶30

The prosecution has filed caste certificate of prosecutrix/victim vide Ex. P/03 which was issued on 16.06.2015 and as per F.I.R. the date of incident is 05.06.2015, so it is clear that this certificate was obtained by the prosecution after the date of the incident.

¶31

(PW-13) Yugal Kishore Urvasha, S.D.M, Champa stated that he issued this certificate on 16.06.2015 and he admitted his signature on A to A part of Ex. P/03. He admitted in para 03 of his cross-examination that he cannot specify the exact documents the victim submitted with her application to support her claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste.

¶32

The statement of prosecutrix (PW-08), her mother (PW-07) did not prove this fact that the accused/respondent committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix on this ground that she belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Learned trial Court also finds that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the accused committed offence on this ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Learned trial Court convicted the accused/respondent under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is also clear from the record that the caste certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained by the prosecution after the date of the incident.

¶33

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:-

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

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:

¶37

(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.

¶38

¶39

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.

¶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

¶42

In the light of above cited judgment and in the present case also, it is clear from the close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses and caste certificate issued by PW-13, was issued after the date of the incident, as such we are of the opinion that the findings recorded under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not proved against the accused/respondent beyond reasonable doubt . So, it is clear that there is no legally admissible or clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against the accused/respondent and the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused/respondent under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶43

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/- Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agarwal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

U.K. Raju

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohan Lal Nishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Mohan Lal Nishad

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

Bhupendra Singh Sandhu Vs Anil Soni

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Chelani Vs Amit Josh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shyamu @ Shyamsundar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaurava @ Golu Agrawal

Xyz Vs Sagar Gupta