1 Reserved on: 27.06.2025 Delivered on: 29.08.2025 2025:CGHC:44078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 387 of 2005 1 - Ashok Kumar S/o Ramlal Gabel Aged About 37 Years Occupation- Farmer R/o Vill. Arjuni P.S. Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - Basant Kumar S/o Janakram Gabel Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Farmer R/o Vill. Arjuni P.S. Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - Shant Kumar S/o Janakram Gabel Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Farmer R/o Vill. Arjuni P.S. Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Ranjit Singh (Died And Abated) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 11-03- 2025 ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Punjabi, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Order 27.06.2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the appellants, assailing the legality, validity ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.29 18:09:57 +0530 2 and judicial propriety of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge {constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 }, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short trial Court) in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2002 by which learned trial Court has held the appellants guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below - Conviction U/s 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sentence Awarded 06 months R.I. and Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional R.I. U/s 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 03 months R.I. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Initially, total 15 accused persons were put to trial and barring the appellants rest of the accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. The appeal was filed by the 04 appellants and during the pendency of the present appeal, appellant no. 4, Ranjit Singh passed away, therefore, appeal stood abated on his behalf. 3. The prosecution's case, in nutshell, is that complainant Mitthuram Sidar (PW- 01) lodged a written report on 11.09.2000 before the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cell Janjgir- Champa inter alia stating that at about 7 pm, appellants entered in the house of the complainant and assaulted his nephew Shaukilal (PW-03), mother and sister-in- law Jhalmati/PW-02 by means of hands and fist and club (stick). Appellants have also abused the complainant/victim in the name of her caste. Complainant also lodged report in this regard before Police Station- Sakti on 10.09.2000. It has been also alleged in the report by the complainant that Chhatram PW- 04, Lalit Kumar 3 PW-05, Pran Singh (not examined), Ishwar Prasad (not examined), Salikram (not examined), and Nanki (not examined) were also present at the time of alleged incident. On the basis of the written report, a crime was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 149,323,149 and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short ‘Special Act’). Injured was taken to the hospital. During course of the investigation, caste certificate of the complainant/victim was seized as Ex. P/02. Injured nephew of the complainant Saukhilal (PW-03) was medically examined. Spot map was prepared as (Ex. P/07). 4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet/challan has been filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. Statements of appellants as well as the other co- accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and stated that on account of previous enmity alleged report has been lodged by the complainant and falsely implicated the appellants in this case. 6. The defence of the accused persons was that the complainant Mitturam Sidar (PW-01) had dropped the pitcher (Kalash) during the ceremony of Ganeshotsav. Earlier, appellants/accused persons too registered a complaint against the complainant Mitturam Sidar (PW-01). In their defence, appellants have examined two witnesses namely Sivanram and Ramkumar. 4 7. After hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the other co-accused persons from all the charges and the present appellants were acquitted from the charges under Section 147, 148 and 506(B) of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Special Act. However, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that the incident said to have occurred on 11.09.2000 and as per complainant (PW-01), initially report was lodged in the concerned Police Station as (Ex. P/06). Rojnamchasana was also recorded in which it has not been stated that appellants entered into the house of the complainant on the alleged date of incident. He submits that the complainant was the Panchayat Sachiv of the village and the residents of the village were not happy with his work, therefore, prior to the alleged incident, a report was also lodged against the complainant. Complainant has lodged the false report against the appellants and many other accused persons as a counter blast just to put pressure upon the appellants. He further submits that eye- witness Lalit Kumar (PW-05) of the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, it is not established that the appellants entered the house of the complainant, hence, provisions contained in Section 452 of IPC would not be attracted in this case. He further contended that there may be some incident of quarrel between the complainant and the appellants and in order to give color of serious offence, an exaggerated statements have been made by the complainant and other injured persons before the Court. As such, appeal may be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from the aforementioned offence/charges. 9. Per contra, Ms. Sonkar, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and submits that on meticulous examination of the evidence on 5 record, finding of conviction have been recorded and it does not require any interference. Therefore, the appeal sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with rapt attention. 11. From the perusal of record it is apparent that initially 15 accused persons were put to trial and barring the appellants herein, rest of the accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court from all the charges levelled against them. FIR Ex. P/05 was said to be lodged by the complainant on 27.06.2001 whereas the incident said to have been occurred on 11.09.2000. The delay has been explained as an inquiry was being conducted on complaint made by the complainant. The star witness in this case is PW-01 Meethuram Sidar (complainant) who in his statement before Court has deposed that he knows the appellants by face and name. The incidents had occurred on 09th and 11th September, 2000. The incident of 09th September occurred at 09:00 p.m and the appellants with common intention took the nephew Shaukilal(PW-03) of the complainant from the pond and, thereafter, assaulted him by means and also abused him in the name of his caste and threatened him for dire consequences. PW-1/complainant further deposed that on 11th September, 2000 at 7-8 PM, when he was at his home alongwith his sister-in-law (PW-02), mother and nephew (PW-03), at that point of time, all the accused persons came there and started abusing them in the name of their caste. When he tried to close the door of his house, the accused persons broke the door and accused persons namely Chatubhan, Rajinth, Ashok, Basant, Shantkumar, Vishwavijay, Subash entered the house whereas accused/Sundarlal, Dilsai, Ramlal, Radhelal, Kushal were standing at the door. After entering inside the house, one of the accused persons hold him and other accused started assaulting him with club (stick/danda) and they were also keeping one sharp edged weapon. 6 Due to assault by club, he sustained injuries on both of his hands, however, PW-1 could not state that who has assaulted him. He further deposed that his sister-in-law(PW-02), mother and nephew(PW-03) were also assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons took him, his nephew and his sister-in-law out of the house and also dragged in the lane and, thereafter, again assaulted there. The incident was witnessed by Chatram (neighbour of the complainant) who was examined as PW-04, however, one Pran Singh and other people who seen the incident have not been examined. They went to lodge the report to the incident on 9th ,however, no report was lodged by the Police and report of the incident of 11th and thereafter on 12th was lodged which is Ex.P/01. He further deposed that he was a Panchayat Secretary in the village, the accused persons have possessed the three ponds of the village in which they used to catch fish arbitrarily and also do farming there.As a result of which, a quarrel took place between the accused appellants and the complainant and, thereafter, accused persons removed him from the post of Panchayat Secretary. 12. From perusal of the examination in chief of complainant, it appears that the incident has occurred on 9th September, 2000 in which his nephew Shaukilal (PW-03) was assaulted and thereafter on 11th September, 2000 all the accused persons entered the house of the complainant and assaulted them and thereafter he along with his family members ranned out of the house towards the lane and again the assault was made in the lane. Few persons have stayed in the house while rest of them stood outside the house. 13. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the appellants/accused persons. Suggestion was given that in the Karma Dance on 9th September, 2000 at 9 PM he was present with Bhagwat Singh. He also denied the suggestion that he and Bhagwat Singh dropped the Kalash of the Kaushliaya 7 Bai, which was seen by the people of the village and the accused persons. Questions were put with regard to some karma party of the village, in which he shows his ignorance. Later on he says that Chanduram Sidar is the president of karma Party. He also admits that he was removed vide order of the Collector Ex. D-1. He further stated that he was removed due to some political pressure. He denied the suggestion that he was not making the payments of Indra Awas Scheme. He stated that Sarpanch has not given any notice and he has not denied to accept the same. He also denied the suggestion of making forged signature of Sarpanch, deduction of money from the Nirashrith Pension, abusing Kotwar and Sarpanch as alleged in the notice. He denied the suggestion that he was given a notice of removal from the post of secretary. He shows his ignorance as to whether proposal was passed in the gram sabha for his removal or not. He also denied the fact that a proposal was passed regarding his removal from the post of Secretary in the gram panchayat meeting which was held on 16.07.2000. He denied the suggestion that Sivan has made an inquiry against him and hence he was angry with the appellants for making Sivan win. He also denied that wife of Dilsa Yadav was Sarpanch therefore, he lodged a false report against him. He admits that Madan has not come to the place of incident and he has not filthly abused or assaulted them. He also admits that he did not lodge any report against him. He denied all the suggestions with regard to happening of the incident. From perusal of this witness it appears that he is making allegation of entering into the house and the accused persons took a defence that he being the Panchayat Sachiv committed illegality and he was removed from his post upon which he was having grudges against the accused persons. The defence was also taken that on occasion of kalash procession, the kalash was dropped by the complainant. 8 14. Jhalmati (PW-02) deposed in her statement that the complainant is her brother in law and he knows the accused persons. She also deposed in the line of PW- 01 similar cross-examination in the same line of PW-01 in which she denied all the suggestions. Some omission was asked in her police statement (Ex. D- 02). 15. Shaukilal, nephew of the complainant also deposed in the same line and he sated that he was assaulted on 09th of September by the accused persons and they took him to home assaulting him from pond. He also stated that accused persons entered the house by breaking the door, assault was made and filthy language was used. He deposed that out of the accused person, Chaturbhan, Ashok, Ranjit, Subash and Basant ,Santkumar Entered the house and Dilsai Premdash and Santosh Kushwaha were outside the house He does not know the name of the persons who were standing outside the house. He further deposed that my uncle PW-01 and mother were assaulted. He could not tell as to who assaulted him as everybody has entered. He also stated with regard to caste abuse. He stated that he received injuries on his neck and head. Thereafter, he deposed that the accused appellants took his uncle out from the house in the lane and there also assault was made by dragging them in the lane. He further deposed that on the same night, along with his uncle he has gone to Police Station - Sakti to lodged the report. In the cross-examination the similar defence has been taken that the Kalash was taken by the appellants and as a result of which, false report has been lodged. In cross-examination he remains firms and nothing incriminating has been brought on record. The statement of PW-01, PW-02 and PW-03 is also corroborating who deposed in the same line. However, PW-05 Lalit has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9 16. Dr. D.D. Mishra (PW-06) medically examined PW-03 Shaukilal and found swelling and pain on his right shoulder and also complaining of pain on the right neck. He stated that injury was simple and was caused by some hard and blunt object and was within one to three hours. He gave his report as Ex. P-04. 17. From the cumulative assessment of the witness examined above by the prosecution it is apparent on record that some incident had taken place on 9th September and according to the witnesses, they went to lodged the report but report was not lodged. Thereafter, on 11th of September, the accused persons filthy abused the complainant Meethuram and some of them entered the house by breaking the door and few of them remained outside the house. The complainant Meethuram, PW-02 and PW-03 were assaulted and it is also alleged that they were dragged towards the lane and assault was made. The defence which has been put forth by the appellants is that on account of previous enmity, false report has been lodged. And initially when the Rojnamchasana Ex. P-06 was recorded, the incident was not stated in the manner as it is deposed in the Court statement. In this context, it would be apt to look into the Ex. P-06. Perusal of Rojnamchasana indicates that there is no mention of accused person have entered the house of complainant. It simply states that accused gathered near the house of complainant and assault was made. Apart from this Ex. P-01 is the written report made to Police which though recites about the entry made by accused in the house which was witnessed by eye witness. This written report was made by complainant but does not contain any receipt of the addressed authority. It appears that this document is prepared later on which runs contrary to the fact of entering the house of complainant. From the records it is quite vivid that there is a dispute between the complainant and villagers including the appellants. If the written report was given on 11.09.2000, the Police should have lodged the FIR on the 10 same day. However, the FIR was lodged on 27.06.2001 with a considerable delay. The reasons assigned is with regard to inquiry of complaint. In the opinion of this Court this is not sufficient reason for lodging the FIR with a delay of about 06 months. 18. One of the glaring aspect of the matter is that the Saukhilal (PW-03) was medically examined on 11.09.2000 in the night itself. Still the Police has not registered the FIR. Entering the house of complainant by the appellants is significant omission in the Rojnamchasana (Ex-P/06). Therefore, it can safely be said that in order to prepare a serious case against the appellants, the written report Ex. P/01 was prepared. On deep analysis of evidence available on record the prosecution was only able to prove the incident occurred near the house of complainant. But at the same time the case of prosecution of entering the house of complainant by the appellants and assaulting inside the house is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 452 of IPC cannot sustain. The appellants are acquitted from charge under Section 452 of IPC by extending benefit of doubt. Their conviction under Section 452 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, their conviction under Section 323 of IPC is hereby maintained. As regard sentence under Section 323 of IPC, this Court has considered the mitigating circumstances. The incident has occurred in the year 2000. The appellants have faced the lis for 25 years. Section 323 of IPC may be punishable with fine only. Therefore, instead of 03 month rigorous imprisonment as imposed, they are sentenced with fine amount of Rs. 500/- each, in default seven days simple imprisonment is imposed. The appellants are granted 90 days time to deposit the fine. On such deposit, 50% of fine amount be paid to injured Saukilal (PW-03) on due verification. 19. Appeal thus allowed in part as indicated above. 11 20. The appellants are on bail, their bail bond will remain in force for 06 months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 21. Records with copy of this judgment be sent to trial Court for information and necessary compliance. sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE alfiza