Chattisgarh High Court
Baiju Singh And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:15983
ABHIGYA
ABHIGYA SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
NAFR
2026.04.13
12:08:51
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 406 of 2009
1. Balju Singh, aged about 23 years Son of Shambhu Singh Thakur;
2. Potan Sunder Singh, aged about 51 years Son of Birjhu Singh @
Umend Singh;
3. Gopal Singh Thakur, aged about 26 years Son of Shambu Singh
@ Bodaki Singh;
4. Pawan Singh, aged about 22 years. Son of Raamau Singh
Thakur;
5. Chhote Yadav, aged about 20 years Son of Ramjhul Yadav;
6. Sunil Kenwat, aged about 22 years Son of Rajkumar;
7. Ramau Singh, aged about 63 years Son of Vishram Singh;
8. Shambhu Singh Son of Vishram Singh, aged about 55 years;
All are residents of Village Paunsara, Police Koni, Station Bilaspur
(C.G.). District
...Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Anusuchit Jati Kalyan, Thana,
Bilaspur, (C.G.). (wrongly mentioned as Police Station Tarbahar,
Bilaspur in the impugned Judgment).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment On Board
08/04/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of
2
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2009 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur (C.G.), in Special
Criminal Case No. 07/2008, whereby the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under-:
S. No. Conviction Sentence
1. U/s. 147 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03 - 03 months to
Code each accused
2. U/s. 341 of Indian Penal R.I. for 01 - 01 month to
Code each accused
3. U/s. 294 of Indian Penal R.I. for 01 - 01 month to
Code each accused
4. U/s. 336/149 of Indian Penal R.I. for 03 – 03 months to
Code each accused
5. R.I. for 06 – 06 months
with fine of Rs.500/- – 500/-
U/s. 295 (A) of Indian Penal each, in default of payment
Code of fine amount additional
R.I. for 03 months each
accused
6. U/s.3 (1) (x) of the R.I. for 06 – 06 months
Scheduled Caste and
with fine of Rs.500/- – 500/-
Scheduled Tribes
each, in default of payment
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 of fine amount additional
R.I. for 03 months each
accused
All the sentences shall run concurrently
2. As per the report received in pursuance of the bailable warrant
3
issued on 01.04.2025 against the appellants, appellant Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 8 have died. Accordingly, the present appeal stands abated
in respect of appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8. Hence, the instant
appeal is now being prosecuted on behalf of appellant Nos. 4, 5, 6
and 7 only.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 22.10.2007 at about 5:30 PM,
during the occasion of Durga Visarjan at Village Paunsara, the
accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly, are alleged to
have assaulted the complainant, Krishnanand Suryawanshi (P.W.-
5), by means of lathi, danda, and stones, and also abused him in
filthy and obscene language. The incident was subsequently
reported to the concerned Police Station, and upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the
appellants. The Learned Trial Court, having taken cognizance of
the matter, framed charges against the appellants under the
relevant provisions of law, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as
13 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded
innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, they
did not examine any witness.
5. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence available on record, convicted the appellants and
4
sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence,
this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial
Court is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law, having been
rendered on a misappreciation of facts and evidence on record. It
is contended that the Learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and has
arrived at findings which are perverse and not borne out from the
evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is
stated to be contradictory, unnatural, and unreliable, and suffers
from material inconsistencies between the statements recorded
during investigation and those deposed before the Court. It is
further submitted that the Learned Trial Court has not considered
the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and
has wrongly convicted the appellants, though the overall facts and
circumstances of the case entitle them to acquittal. The impugned
judgment is thus liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that
there is neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence connecting
the appellants with the alleged offence and they have been falsely
implicated without any cogent or credible evidence. It is also
contended that no offence under Sections 452, 294 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, nor under Section 3(1)(10)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out against the appellants. Without
5
prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the
sentence imposed is unduly harsh and excessive in the facts and
circumstances of the case and, therefore, deserves to be set
aside.
Alternatively, it is submitted that in the event this Hon’ble
Court is pleased to uphold the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 147, 341, 294, 336 read with Section 149 and Section
295-A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3(1)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, as recorded by the Learned Trial Court, then,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view
in the matter of sentence may kindly be taken. It is respectfully
submitted that the incident in question pertains to the year 2007
and the present appeal has been pending since 2009. The
appellants have already undergone incarceration for a period of
about 09 days, and during the course of trial, they remained on
bail and have not misused the liberty granted to them. In these
circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the sentence
imposed upon the appellants be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting
the impugned judgment, submits that the learned trial Court after
minutely appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections
147, 341, 294, 336/149 and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and
6
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, this appeal being
without any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
9. It is borne out from the record of the learned Trial Court that
charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 147,
148, 294, 336, 336 read with Section 149, 341 and 295-A of the
Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution
examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents.
Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the
charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; however, it
proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants for the
remaining offences, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the impugned
judgment.
10. As per the prosecution case, the complainant is stated to belong
to a Scheduled Caste and has produced a caste certificate
marked as Ex.P/1. However, a perusal of Ex.P/1 reveals that it is
a temporary certificate (अस्थाई प्रमाण पत्र), which is valid only for a
period of six months from the date of its issuance, i.e.,
26.11.2007. It is further evident from the record that the date of
the alleged incident, as reflected in the FIR (Ex.P/18), is
7
22.10.2007, whereas the said caste certificate was issued
subsequently on 26.11.2007, i.e., after the date of the incident, by
the Naib Tehsildar.
11. While dealing with the issue where the caste 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:-
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.
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.
8
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:
(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.
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.
9
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.”
12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR
1995 SC 94 observed that the application for grant of social status
certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer
and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate
shall be issued by such officer rather that officer at Taluk or
Mandal Level. This Court does not attract Section 3(1)(x) in this
case.
10
13. Krishna Nand (P.W.-05), in his deposition before the Learned Trial
Court, has stated that all the accused persons assaulted him and
abused him by using filthy and caste-related language, pursuant to
which the First Information Report came to be lodged against the
present appellants/accused persons. Further, Ram Kumar (P.W.-
06), Pratap (P.W.-07), Shatrughan (P.W.-08), Shiv Kumar (P.W.-
09) and Shani Kumar (P.W.-10), in their respective depositions,
have supported and corroborated the version of the complainant
as deposed before the Court. However, in view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful perusal of
the entire record, it is evident that the caste certificate (Ex.P/1) has
been obtained subsequent to the date of the alleged incident.
Consequently, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish
that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste at the time of
the incident. In such circumstances, the essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not
made out against the appellants.
14. Dr. Sandeep Tiwari (P.W.-03), who conducted the medical
examination of the injured witnesses (P.W.-04 to P.W.-16), duly
proved the medical reports and deposed before the Learned Trial
Court. His testimony lends due corroboration to the version of the
complainant and other injured witnesses, inasmuch as the injuries
noted in the medical evidence are consistent with the ocular
testimony adduced on record.
11
15. The Learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the oral as
well as documentary evidence, including the medical evidence,
and has rightly recorded the conviction of the appellants. The
findings so recorded are based on proper appreciation of the
evidence of the witnesses and are duly supported by the medical
evidence on record. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants
under Sections 147, 341, 294, 336 read with Section 149 and
Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed.
However, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
is set aside.
16. As regards the sentence, considering that the incident in
question occurred in the year 2007 and nearly 19 years have
elapsed since then, and further that the appellants have already
undergone incarceration for about 09 days, have remained on bail
for a considerable period, and have not misused the liberty so
granted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of
justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded to the
appellants under Sections 147, 341, 294, 336 read with Section
149 and Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants under Sections 147, 341, 294, 336 read with Section
149 and Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
affirmed. However, the appellants are acquitted of the charge
12
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. So far as the sentence
is concerned, the same, as imposed by the Learned Trial Court for
the aforesaid offences under the Indian Penal Code, is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
18. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail
bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from
today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS.
19. 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.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Saxena
