1 2025:CGHC:15503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 805 of 2007  Naresh Yadav @ Nareshram Yadu, S/o Dashrath Yadav, aged about 55 years, R/o Bhandapuri, P.S. Palari, District Raipur C.G. ... Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Palari, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate with Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 02/04/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.48/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 294 IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 two months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 03.11.2005 when complainant Devaldas (PW-1) was in his house, at the relevant time, accused/appellant reached there and started uttering abusive words, uttered caste remark and extended life threat & went to his house brandishing club. The complainant being annoyed with the incident, went to police station and lodged a written report (Ex.P-1), which was recorded in rojnamcha sanha followed by registration of FIR (Ex.P-5) against the accused/appellant under Sections 294a and 506 of IPC. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant under Sections 294, 506-B IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting him for the offence under Sections 506-B of IPC and 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merit and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 21 years back, now the relation between the accused/appellant and victim are cordial, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for five days, the jail sentence is not mandatory under Section 294 IPC and, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Complainant Devaldas (PW-1) while supporting the prosecution case has stated that on the date of incident, 4 accused/appellant came to him uttering abusive words and caste remark extended life threat. He further submits that on an invitation of Thetwar community, he had gone to Daihan and when he returning from there, the accused/appellant intercepted him near the house of Deputy Sarpanch and uttered caste remark Þfudy js pejk] nksgk D;ksa iM+rs gksß- Thereafter, the accused/appellant also came to his house and said that Þfudy js pejkß and uttered abusive language. This witness has also stated that thereafter he made a written report (Ex.P-1) in police station and the Thana In- charge reduced the written report as stated by him. In cross- examination, this witness remained firm and nothing could be elicited by the defence to discredit his testimony. 10. Vishnuram Dhimar (PW-2) is the neighbor and resident of same village. He has also specifically stated that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant uttered caste remand and extended life threat then he pacified the dispute between them. In cross-examination, this witness has also remained firm and nothing could be elicited by the defense to discredit his testimony. 11. Dwarika Das (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to see festival of “Maatar” and was reading doha, and at the relevant time, accused/appellant came there and said as to why they were reading doha and 5 started abusing him. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that complainant Dewaldas (PW-1) had come to him and stated that accused/appellant told him ‘Chamra’ and abused him in the name of mother and sister then he (this witness) told him to lodge a report in police station. He has also stated that the accused/appellant had also abused him and that was an earlier incident, after this complainant Dewaldas came and told him that the accused/appellant abused him by calling him “Chamra” and abused him in the name of his mother and sister. 12. Aaskumar (PW-4) has also turned hostile. 13. Harichand (PW-5) turned hostile. 14. Jeevan Lal Kanouje (PW-6) is the Constable, who recorded the offence under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC . 15. Roshan Das Manikpuri (PW-7) is the Kotwar who admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P-6) by which caste certificate of complainant was seized. 16. Close scrutiny of the evidence, in particular the statement of victim PW/1 which evidence is dully corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, makes it clear that on 03.11.2005, the accused/appellant came to complainant near the house of Sarpanch, uttered abusive words in the name of mother and 6 sister, caste remark and extended life threat. Thereafter, the accused/appellant also went to the house of complainant and said that Þfudy js pejkß and uttered abusive language in the name of his mother and sister. Though the independent witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have not supported the prosecution case but considering the statement of the victim PW-1 and another witness PW-2, and promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P/5) naming the accused/appellant to be the culprit, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and held him guilty under Section 294 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 17. The only question which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused/appellant. 18. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the incident occurred 21 years ago, by now the accused/appellant must be settled, he has already remained in jail for about five days, sending him to jail again may figure enmity between the two groups and jail sentence is not mandatory under Section 294 IPC, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail at this stage and the 7 ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 294 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 20. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 21. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE