1 2025:CGHC:35287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 253 of 2019 1 - Vijay Bhushan Ekka S/o Late Dominic Ekka Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Service, R/o A/2- 36, Rampur, Irrigation Colony, Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant). ... Appellant. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Rampur, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nirmal Kumar Soni S/o Late S.S. Soni R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Lingyadih, Near Appollo Hospital, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Presently R/o At H-20, Irrigation Colony Rampur, Police Station- Rampur, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For State/Res No.1 : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl AG. For Respondent No.2 Shri Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 23/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter “the Act, 1989”) District AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 16:16:06 +0530 2 Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.11/2016 whereby, Respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 294, 506 (Part-2), 186 of IPC & Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that Complainant Vijay Bhushan Ekka was posted as an Assistant Grade-II in Hasdeo Barrage water resource division, Rampur, Korba and Respondent No.2 was also posted in the same division on the post of Stenotypist. Regarding a transfer and joining dispute, Respondent No.2 filed a Writ Petition (S) bearing No.3818/2015. In the said case, an order was passed on 16.10.2015 in favour of Respondent No.2 vide Ex.D/9, wherein, it was directed that ‘no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner during pendency of the petition’. It is the case of Respondent No.2/stenotypist that on the date of incident i.e. on 21.10.2015, he along with the said order (Ex.D/9) had approached the office vide Ex.D/10 to submit his joining. The Complainant who is an establishment clerk, in his complaint (Ex.P/1), stated that as on 07.10.2015, Respondent No.2 had already been relieved from the office, however inspite of that he was putting pressure upon him for the joining. Therefore, complainant told Respondent No.2 that when the Executive Engineer will come to the office then he may report for joining. On hearing such advice, Respondent No.2 abused the complainant in the name of his caste, tried to assault and also threatened to kill as also obstructed his official duty. Complainant also made a complaint before the Special Judge vide Ex.P/2. 3. An unnumbered FIR was initially registered vide Ex.P/11. After the enquiry, FIR was registered vide Ex.P/10 on 13.03.2016 with the police station Rampur, distt. Korba vide No.131/2016. Crime details form was 3 prepared vide Ex.P/3. Certificate of being a government servant of the complainant and the attendance register were seized vide Ex.P/4. From the complainant his caste certificate was seized vide Ex.P/6. 4. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 5. During trial, Respondent No.2 abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/13 and Article A/1 to Article A/5. 7. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Respondent No.2 stated that he has been falsely implicated and on the date of incident, when he approached to give his joining, complainant refused for the same and abused him in a filthy language and beaten him, for which, he has also made a complaint on the same day with the police chowki Rampur. He has examined defence witness namely BP Sahu (DW-1) who was also posted in the same establishment and exhibited 19 documents vide Ex.D/1 to Ex. D/19. 8. Learned Special Judge, after evaluating the evidence acquitted the Respondent No.2. Hence this Appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that for joining purposes, some altercation took place between complainant and Respondent No.2 on trivial issue. In the said incident, as Respondent No.2 himself misbehaved with the complainant and uttered some words in the name of his caste, therefore, learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused. 10.On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would support the impugned judgment. 4 11.Learned State counsel submits that he has not preferred any appeal. 12.In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 13.Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast 5 upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 14.Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 15. 15. In the case at hand, complainant Vijay Bhushan Ekka (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident i.e. on 21.10.2015, Respondent No.2 appeared in the office and asked him for joining. When complainant told him that on 07.10.2015 he has already been relieved from the office of Rampur, Korba to Dantewada and he is supposed to give his joining at Dantewada up till 21.10.2015, then why he has come again to the office at Korba. Further, complainant told the respondent/accused to give his joining after the Executive Engineer reaches the office, on hearing this, Respondent No.2 abused the complainant in the name of his mother and in the name of his caste and picked up a chair and tried to assault him. When the 6 complainant tried to escape from the room, Respondent No.2 also chased him in the office. 16.Respondent No.2 has taken a specific defence that, in his favour, an order has been passed by this Court in WPS No.3818/2015 (Ex.D/9) and when he reported for joining along with the said order (Ex.D/10), wife of the complainant, who was also posted in the same office as a receipt dispatch clerk, refused to accept the joining letter. When wife of the complainant namely Lavrensia Ekka (PW-5) did not accept the letter of joining (Ex.D/10), then Respondent No.2 met the complainant Vijay Bhushan Ekka (PW-1) who is an establishment clerk and on account of such transfer and joining dispute, some altercation took place between both of them and both sides made a report with the police station. 17.During trial, there are some exaggerated statements given by the complainant, which has been recorded by the learned Special Judge. In the written complaint (Ex.P/1), no specific words about the abuse have been mentioned and mere empty threat does not attract for the offence of criminal intimidation. The Respondent No.2/accused has also demonstrated the fact that he was also an office bearer and the Secretary of Chhattisgarh Grade-III Shaskiya Karamchari Sangh, therefore, there was an enmity between the officers and the employees. Considering the background of the incident, the trial Court acquitted the Respondent No.2/accused holding that no offence attracts under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989, as there was no intention to insult the complainant knowing fully well that he belongs to a particular caste, however, an altercation took place only on account of joining dispute as wife of the complainant, who was also posted as receipt dispatch clerk refused to accept the joining and 7 a defence has been taken by the Respondent No.2/accused that wife of complainant had not accepted the letter of joining though order has been passed by the High Court. 18. When a receipt and dispatch clerk refuses to accept any letter, normally a person is bound to report to a senior clerk or officer of that office. 19.It appears that the complainant is not aware about the outcome of the order passed by the High Court. When he asked the Respondent No.2 to wait for some time, the dispute arose between both of them. Therefore, there was no intention on the part of the Respondent No.2 to obstruct the official duty. 20.In view of the aforesaid infirmities, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. 21.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash