The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by two men convicted in a 2005 trial court judgment, setting aside their conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 506(2) of the IPC, while retaining conviction under Section 294 IPC.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas delivered the judgment on April 16, 2026, in CRA No. 538 of 2005, filed by Milauram and Ramesh Kumar against the State of Chhattisgarh.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case was that a dispute arose over construction of a shop on government land in Rajnandgaon district. A complaint was lodged alleging that the complainant, said to belong to a Scheduled Caste community, was abused by caste name, slapped, and threatened.
Following investigation, charges were framed under IPC provisions and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. In June 2005, the Special Judge at Rajnandgaon convicted the appellants and awarded jail terms and fines. They later challenged that ruling before the High Court.
The High Court closely examined whether the complainant’s caste status had been legally proved.
The bench noted that the prosecution relied on a temporary caste certificate issued by a Tahsildar, which was undated and valid only for six months. The Court held that such a document could not be treated as reliable proof for sustaining conviction under the SC/ST Act.
Justice Vyas observed that,
“It is required to be proved by cogent and unimpeachable evidence that the complainant falls within the caste… notified as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.”
The Court further found no sufficient material to show that the alleged acts were committed specifically because of the complainant’s caste identity.
On the charge under Section 294 IPC, relating to obscene abusive words in a public place, the Court found that prosecution witnesses had consistently supported the allegation. Since there was no effective rebuttal, the conviction under this provision was maintained.
However, on the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506(2) IPC, the Court held that mere words are not enough unless there is proof of intent to cause alarm.
The bench said the prosecution failed to establish that the threats were made with intention to create fear or compel any act.
The High Court set aside the conviction of both appellants under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506(2) IPC.
Their conviction under Section 294 IPC was affirmed, but the six-month jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The Court increased the fine from ₹500 each to ₹2,000 each, directing the additional amount to be paid within eight weeks and disbursed to the complainant as compensation.
Case Details
Case Title: Milauram & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: CRA No. 538 of 2005
Judge: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Decision Date: April 16, 2026
