1 / 15

2026:CGHC:15895

The date when

the judgment is

reserved

The date when

the judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

24.02.2026 07.04.2026 -- 07.04.2026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1021 of 2007

Rakesh Rai, son of Haripad Rai Bengali, aged about 35

years, resident of village Subhash Nagar, Police Station

Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station –

Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate.

For Respondent/State:Mr. Himanshi Yadu, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

(C A V Judgment)

2 / 15

1.The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC

has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

29.10.2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge,

Atrocities, Ambikapur – Surguja (C.G.), in Special Sessions

Case No. 29/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted

under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short ‘the Act’), and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 3 (1) (xi) of

S.C./S.T. Act,

R.I. for 06 months with fine of

Rs.200/-, in default of payment

of fine amount to undergo

additional R.I. for 01 month.

2.Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.12.2006, the wife of

the appellant told complainant (PW-1), who belonged to

Uraon Caste which comes under the category of Scheduled

Tribes, that she was going to village Deori and, therefore,

requested her to come to her house and prepare food for

the appellant. Accordingly, the prosecutrix (PW-1) went to

the house of the accused/appellant to cook food. At that

time, the accused/appellant told her that the light of the

kitchen could be switched off from the bedroom and asked

her to go to the bedroom to switch it off. When prosecutrix

3 / 15

(PW-1) entered the bedroom of the accused/appellant, the

accused/appellant caught hold of her hand and, with the

intention of outraging her modesty, attempted to push her

towards the bed, however, the prosecutrix (PW-1) managed

to free her hand and returned to her house, where she shut

the door from inside. Thereafter, the accused/appellant

came and started banging on the door of her house from

outside. Thereafter, the incident was reported at Police

Station Gandhinagar, whereupon an FIR (Ex.P-1) for the

offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3(i)(xi) of

the Act was registered being against the acucsed/appellant.

Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was

filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Ambikapur, against the accused/appellant for the

offence under Section 354 IPC and 3(i)(xi) of the Act.

Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Section

3(1) (xi) of the Act, in alternate under Section 354 of IPC, to

which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for

trial.

3.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as

many as 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant

was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he

denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

4 / 15

him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false

implication.

4.Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective

parties and considering the material available on record, by

the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the

accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an

inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The

alleged incident occurred on 24.12.2006, whereas the F.I.R.

was lodged on 26.01.2007 i.e. after 32 days of the incident.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has failed to furnish any satisfactory

explanation for such delay, and the learned Trial Court erred

in not properly appreciating this material aspect. Learned

counsel further submits that even if the contents of the F.I.R.

are taken at their face value, the allegations do not

constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act. The

F.I.R. has been lodged due to previous enmity between the

parties. It appears that the complaint was filed only after the

dispute between them could not be amicably settled. The

Learned Trial Court failed to consider this aspect in its

proper perspective. Learned counsel also submits that there

are material contradictions and omissions in the statements

of the prosecution witnesses rendering the prosecution story

doubtful. It has been also argued that the prosecution has

5 / 15

failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. So, the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is

liable to be set aside.

In support of his submission, learned counsel placed

reliance on the decision dated 29.02024 passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dashrath Sahu Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh [2024 INSC 68].

6.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strongly

opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the

learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and no

interference is called for by this Court.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the learned trial Court.

8.It is evident from the record of the trial Court that the learned

trial Court framed charge against the appellant under

Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, in alternate Section 354 of IPC

and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,

the learned trial Court considering the provision of Act,

1989, convicted and sentenced her as mentioned in para of

of this judgment.

9.As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 3

(1) (xi) of the Act, 1989, it transpires from the record of the

learned trial Court that the prosecution has not filed the

caste certificate of the prosecutrix (PW-1) before the learned

6 / 15

Trial Court and the learned Trial Court only on this ground

that the accused/appellant admitted the caste of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe

category, held him guilty for the offence.

10.It is well settled proposition of law that in order to establish

the guilt of the accused under the offence of S.C./S.T.

Atrocities Act, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt by obtaining the social status certificate

issued by the competent authority, and 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 AIR 1995 SC 94, held in paras 11 and 12 as

under :-

“11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) which

has been 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 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.

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

7 / 15

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.”

11.In the instant case also, it is evident from the record of the

learned Trial Court that no caste certificate of the prosecutrix

(PW-1) issued by the competent authority as contemplated

in Madhuri Patil (supra) has been produced by the

prosecution. In absence of any documentary evidence to

establish the fact that the prosecutrix (PW-1) belong to S.T.

community, it is unsafe to convict the accuse/appellant for

the offence under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act. The prosecution

has utterly failed to prove this fact that the complainant (PW-

1) belonged to Scheduled Tribe category by not

producing/fining caste certificate issued by the competent

authority. Thus, in view of the decisions of this Court, in

Meghnath (supra), the finding of the learned Trial Court that

the prosecutrix/complainant (PW-1) belongs to Scheduled

Tribe community is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Further, it is also evident from the FIR (Ex.P-1) that the date

of incident is 24.12.2006 and the date of FIR is 26.01.2007,

as such there is inordinate delay of about 32 days and the

cause of delay in filing the FIR was shown to be ‘Hk; ds dkj.k

8 / 15

xkao pys tkus ds dkj.k’. The explanation furnished by the

prosecution does not inspire confidence and creates a

serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution

story. It is well settled that such delay, when not

satisfactorily explained, casts a shadow on the prosecution

case.

12.The next question which arises for consideration by this

Court whether the accused/appellant used force with the

intent to dishonour or outrage modesty of

prosecutrix/complainant (PW-1).

13.Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the incident pertains to

December, 2006 at about 8:00 PM, when she went to the

house of the accused/appellant to prepare food, as his wife

had earlier told her that in her (wife of accused) absence,

she (prosecutrix) should come and cook food for accused.

She has further deposed that when she entered the house

of the accused, he followed her inside, caught hold of her

hand, and started pulling her. Thereafter, she pushed the

accused with force, freed herself, and immediately ran from

there to her house and bolted the door from inside. The

accused then came and started banging on the door of her

house and told her that from that day onwards, she should

not come to their house or their land. There was a bore-well

situated on the accused’s land, from where she used to

9 / 15

fetch water. She has also deposed that on the date of the

incident, the wife of the accused had gone to village Deori.

Her (prosecutrix’s) elder sister was present at the house,

and after returning from the house of the accused, she

narrated the entire incident to her sister. Due to fear, she

(prosecutrix) went to sleep at night in the house of her

uncle, who resides in the neighbourhood. She has also

deposed that on the next morning, the wife of the accused

scolded her and alleged that she (this witness) was falsely

implicating her husband. Thereafter, she along with her

elder sister went to village Deori and informed her parents

about the incident. Subsequently, she along with her

parents, went to the concerned police station (Dehat) and

lodged the report of the incident vide Ex.P-1.

14.In cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted

that prior to the alleged incident, there existed cordial

relations between her family and that of the accused, and

both families were on visiting terms with each other. She

further admitted that she used to visit the house of the

accused even in the absence of his wife and that the

accused treated her like his daughter. It is also admitted by

her that there had been no prior dispute between her and

the accused before the date of the alleged incident. She has

further admitted that at the time of the incident, it was dark.

10 / 15

She admits that on the date of incident, the accused had not

entered into quarrel with her. The prosecutrix has also

admitted that her father had entered into a compromise with

the accused. She has further admitted that the report of the

incident was lodged after about one month from the date of

the incident because the accused/appellant had pelted

stones at her house and threatened that accused/appellant

would not allow them to pursue studies. Additionally, she

admitted that she neither read the report (Ex. P/1) nor was it

read over to her by the police, and that the police did not

record her statement.

15.Father of prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that on 24.12.2006,

at evening, her daughter (PW-1) informed him over phone

that the accused/appellant called his daughter to his

(accused) house to prepare meal and when she was going

to switch on the light of the house, the accused/appellant

caught hold of her daughter’s hand and started pulling her

but she pushed the accused with force and freed herself.

This witness has also stated that on 26.12.2006, he came to

Subhash Nagar, Ambikapur from village Devri and at the

relevant time, one Omprakash told him to compromise the

matter and thereafter a written compromise was executed

saying not to report the matter then they did not lodge the

report. He has also stated that after compromise, he went to

11 / 15

his house at Devri and his daughter (PW-1) informed him

over phone that the accused/appellant had pelted stone at

his house uttering filthy language.

16.In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had

purchased a rehabilitation land from accused and

constructed a house. He has also admitted that a registry

was not executed and agreement has been executed on

stamp paper. This witness has denied this suggestion that

there was disputed as he had not paid the consideration

amount. He has also denied this suggestion that he got the

report lodged through her daughter (PW-1) due to the land

dispute. He has also denied that he persuaded her daughter

(PW-1) to file a report a month later. He has admitted that

he lodged the report only after giving it some

thought/discussion, once her daughter (PW-1) had informed

the incident. He has also admitted that he had stated in his

police statement that accused had pelted stone at his house

and used to spit upon seeing his daughter (PW-1), but if the

said fact is not written in his police statement he cannot tell

the reason thereof.

17.Cousin of prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated that the incident

pertains to 24.12.2006 at about 7:30 PM. At that time, she

was unwell and was lying at home. Her sister Prosecutrix

(PW-1) told her that she was going to the house of accused

12 / 15

to prepare food. In between, she came to check on her as

she (this witness) was not keeping well. After about two

hours, she (Prosecutrix) again came to see her, sat with her

for a short while, and then stated that accused had told her

to have food there, after which she went back to the house

of accused. She has also deposed that after about 10–15

minutes, her sister prosecutrix PW-1 returned and knocked

at the door, calling out, “Didi, Didi, open the door.” When she

responded, she (prosecutrix) told her to immediately close

the door and not to speak anything, and further asked her to

put a lock on the door. She (prosecutrix) also told her that

accused would come and ask to open the door, but she

should not open it under any circumstances. She has also

deposed that after about 3–4 minutes, accused Rakesh

came and knocked at the door, calling out to open. At that

time, accused also called out to her to open the door. When

she looked through the window, accuse told her to vacate

the house immediately. Thereafter, her sister prosecutrix

(PW-1), without informing her anything further, went away

and slept elsewhere and she went and at the instance of

accused, she stayed at the house of neighbour Ankit.

18.It is clear from the evidence of all the three aforesaid

prosecution witnesses that the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her

father lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1) after 32 days of the incident

13 / 15

and no satisfactory cause of delay has been offered by

them. PW-3, Cousin of prosecutrix, has not supported the

prosecution case and it is also clear that no caste certificate

was filed by the prosecution to establish the social status of

the prosecutrix. Even otherwise, the prosecutrix (PW-1)

herself stated that there existed cordial relations between

her family and that of the accused, and both families were

on visiting terms with each other.

19.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dashrath Sahu

(supra) held in para 10 and 11 as under :-

“10.In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a

case involving offence under Section 3(2)v) of

the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)xi) fo

the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also

provides that the offence must be committed

upon a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was

being done on the ground of caste.

11.Considered in the light of the above factual

and legal position, we are of the opinion that the

conviction of the accused appellant for the

offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act

was otherwise also not sustainable on merits.

Hence, the conviction of the accused appellant

as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the

High Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi)

of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside and

quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge

under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The

14 / 15

appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are

discharged.”

20.In the light of above proposition in Dashrath (supra), in the

present case also, it is evident from the prosecution

witnesses that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove

that the alleged act was committed with the requisite

intention to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) on the ground that she belonged to a

Scheduled Tribe community, which is a sine qua non for

attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, as reiterated by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dashrath (supra).

21.In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge,

Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No.

29/2007, is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the

charge levelled against him.

22.The appellant is already on bail. Keeping in view of the

provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.),

the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond

in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal

Procedure of 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

15 / 15

the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the

instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid

appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

23.Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be

transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for

necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

pekde