1 CRA No.908 of 2019 2025:CGHC:43003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 908 of 2019 1 - Bhaiyalal Bisen S/o Late Lakshandhari Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Parmeshwarpur, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Umashankar Rajwade S/o Shivaram Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Parmeshwarpur, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajeshwar @ Charka S/o Chainsai Rajwade Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Parmeshwarpur, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Surendra @ Pintu S/o Rambilas Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Parmeshwarpur, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Bisen S/o Bhaiyalal Bisen Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Parmeshwarpur, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.26 17:33:00 +0530 2 CRA No.908 of 2019 (Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge) Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 25/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/05/2019 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 15/2018 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 147 & 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 3 months each. U/s 294 of the Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. U/s 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 250/- each, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that complainant Somar Sai lodged a report at Police Station Ramanujnagar stating that agricultural land at village Parmeshwarpur was in the name of his mother-in-law Indrakunwar, where he had cultivated paddy. On 25.11.2017 at about 4:00 PM, accused persons Bhiyalal Rajwade, Suresh Rajwade, Umashankar Rajwade, Pintu Rajwade and Charka Rajwade, armed with sticks, were cutting the paddy crop. When the complainant objected, accused Suresh Rajwade abused him, threatened to kill him and assaulted him 3 CRA No.908 of 2019 with a stick, whereafter the other accused also joined in beating him with fists, kicks and sticks, causing him to fall on the ground. On hearing the commotion, his wife Rambai rushed to the spot and nearby persons Manmati, Santoshi and others intervened and rescued him. The complainant sustained injuries on his head, chest, back, hands, legs, thighs and waist. On the basis of his report, Crime No. 226/2017 was registered under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147, 148 IPC and he was medically examined at CHC Ramanujnagar. During investigation, the spot map was prepared, his caste certificate was seized, a bamboo stick was recovered from accused Suresh Rajwade, treatment records were collected and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147, 148 IPC and Section 3(1-द,ध) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 294, 506, 323 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which the accused denied, claiming false implication, and examined accused Bhiyalal Bisen in defence under Section 315 CrPC. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution, has examined 11 witnesses namely; Somar Sai (PW-1), Santoshi (PW-2), Bhagmaniya (PW-3), Rambai (PW-4), Manmati (PW-5), Sunil Yadav (PW-6), Rampatu (PW-7), Dr. Rajshree Singh (PW-8), Investigating Officer Chanchal Tiwari (PW-9), Ramlakhan Singh (PW-10) and Head 4 CRA No.908 of 2019 Constable Guddu Kumar Kushwaha (PW-11). 3. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 17/05/2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of the learned trial court suffers from serious infirmities and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant himself admitted that the land in question was not in his ownership, but in the name of his mother-in- law, thereby raising serious doubt over his exclusive possession. The possibility of a land dispute and false implication cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel would further submit that the evidence of the complainant and his relatives, being interested witnesses, has been relied upon without proper corroboration. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in material particulars. The medical evidence also does not conclusively establish the manner of assault as alleged. In absence of consistent and reliable evidence, the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court is wholly unsustainable. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the conviction of the accused persons by the trial court is fully justified and based on cogent evidence. The complainant Somar Sai was in settled possession of the agricultural land where he had cultivated paddy, and the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks, 5 CRA No.908 of 2019 unlawfully attempted to cut the crop. When resisted, they abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant, causing multiple injuries. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. PW-1 Somar Sai (Complainant) has stated that he lives in his in-laws’ house as a ghar-jamai and looks after the agricultural land belonging to his mother-in-law Indrakunwar. He had cultivated paddy on her land in the year of occurrence. On the date of incident, around 4:00 PM, when he went to the field, he found the accused persons Bhaiyalal Bisen, Umashankar Rajwade, Rajeshwar @ Charka, Surendra @ Pintu and Suresh Bisen cutting the crop. On objecting and telling them that the land belongs to his mother-in-law and the paddy was cultivated by him, accused Suresh abused him in caste-related filthy language, claimed the land to be theirs and assaulted him with a stick, whereafter the other accused persons also joined in beating him with fists and kicks, causing injuries to his head, chest, back and both arms. Hearing the commotion, his wife Rambai along with villagers Manmati, Santoshi and Bhagmaniya rushed to the spot and intervened. He was thereafter taken by 108 ambulance to Ramanujnagar hospital, where he was treated. He further deposed that being a member of Gond community, he was deliberately abused by the accused with caste- based insults, which caused him humiliation. During cross-examination, he admitted that Bhaiyalal and 6 CRA No.908 of 2019 Suresh are father and son residing at village Pawanpur, and that there has been a land dispute between him and Bhaiyalal for the past 8–10 years. He acknowledged that earlier, in 2015, there was litigation between them regarding the same disputed land and that a criminal case had also been registered against him and his family members on Bhaiyalal’s report. He admitted that khasra No.1152 is Bhaiyalal’s patta land, whereas his own land lies adjacent, bearing khasra Nos. 1114, 1140 and 1141. He denied the defence suggestion that he had cut the paddy crop from Bhaiyalal’s land or that the accused persons were harvesting their own field at the time of incident. 8. PW-2 Santoshi has deposed that she knows the complainant Somar Sai, who is the son-in-law of Indrakunwar and resides in her house, cultivating her agricultural land. She stated that Indrakunwar’s field is adjacent to her family’s field. In the year of incident, Somar Sai had cultivated paddy in Indrakunwar’s land, and while that crop was being cut, there was an altercation with abuses and assault on Somar Sai, during which he was saying that the paddy belonged to him. However, she clarified that as she was at some distance, she could not identify the persons who were abusing and beating Somar Sai. She further deposed that at the time of incident, around 4–5 PM, she was harvesting paddy in her own field and heard commotion near Indrakunwar’s field. On hearing the noise, she and others stopped their work and saw people gathered near the field. She did not see who exactly assaulted Somar Sai or where he sustained injuries. Later, his 7 CRA No.908 of 2019 wife Rambai and others took him to hospital. She stated that the police did not record her statement. Being declared hostile, she was confronted with her earlier police statement (Ex. P-4), but she denied having stated to the police that she had seen accused persons Bhaiyalal, Umashankar, Surendra @ Pintu, Rajeshwar @ Charka and Suresh assaulting Somar Sai with stick and fists, or that they had abused him with caste-related slurs and threatened to kill him. She maintained that she had not given such statement to the police and could not say why it was written so. In cross-examination by the defence, nothing further was elicited. 9. PW-3 Bhagmaniya has deposed that she knows the complainant Somar Sai, whose wife is Rambai and who resides in his in-laws’ village and cultivates the land of his mother-in-law Indrakunwar. She stated that she does not know who had sown the paddy in the disputed field that year, but the incident took place around 4:00 PM during paddy harvesting season. At that time, while she was cutting paddy in her own field, she heard commotion and rushed to the spot. She saw that Somar Sai had been assaulted, but as she was at some distance she could not identify the persons who were beating him, and by the time she reached, the assailants had fled. Thereafter, she along with Rambai took Somar Sai to his house; he had sustained injuries, though she could not recall the exact parts of the body where he was injured. She admitted that there was a land dispute between the complainant and the accused. She further stated that her own field is about 30 meters 8 CRA No.908 of 2019 from that of Somar Sai. She expressed uncertainty whether the police had recorded her statement. She confirmed that she is illiterate and puts her thumb impression. Being declared hostile, she was confronted with her earlier police statement (Ex. P-5), but she denied having stated to police that she saw accused Suresh beating Somar Sai with a stick, or that other accused Bhaiyalal, Umashankar, Surendra and Rajeshwar assaulted him with fists and gave caste-based abuses and threats. She denied the suggestion that she intervened in the assault, or that she witnessed the caste abuses being hurled. She also denied that she had witnessed police seizing Somar Sai’s caste certificate in her presence. She rejected the suggestion that she was suppressing the truth to shield the accused as they belonged to her village. In cross-examination by defence, nothing further was elicited. 10. PW-4 Rambai has (wife of the complainant) deposed that she knows all the accused persons present in court. She stated that Somar Sai is her husband, and her mother’s name is Indrakunwar. She, her husband and children live in her mother’s house in Parmeshwarpur. The agricultural land in question is recorded in the name of her mother Indrakunwar, and since her father has passed away, she and her husband look after the land. They cultivate crops every year, and in the relevant year, they had sown paddy. On the date of incident, at about 4:00 PM, all the accused persons came to her mother’s land and started cutting the standing paddy crop. When she and her husband objected, 9 CRA No.908 of 2019 accused Suresh abused her husband with filthy language and caste- based slurs. Suresh then snatched a stick from her husband and assaulted him with it. The remaining accused also abused her husband and assaulted him with sticks and stones. At that time, she herself was cutting paddy nearby. Prosecution witnesses Santoshi (PW2) and Bhagmaniya (PW3) were also present at the spot. After the incident, she along with Santoshi and Bhagmaniya took her injured husband home and later called the 108 ambulance, by which he was taken to the hospital at Ramanujnagar. She stated that her husband had sustained injuries on his head, back and both arms due to the assault. Thereafter, her husband lodged the report at the police station. The police came for investigation, prepared the site map in her presence, and she affixed her thumb impression on it. In Cross-examination, she admitted that their house is situated about 100–150 meters from the place of occurrence. She denied the suggestion that the incident occurred around 2:00 PM and reaffirmed that she was present in the field at about 4:00 PM cutting paddy. She clarified that she was cutting paddy in her mother’s field when the incident occurred at a distance of 100–150 meters. She denied the defence suggestion that at the relevant time the accused were cutting their own crop, or that her husband had falsely implicated them. She maintained her version that the accused assaulted her husband. 11. PW-5 Manmati has deposed that on the date of incident at about 2–3 PM, she along with her mother Bhagmaniya was cutting paddy in their 10 CRA No.908 of 2019 own field when they heard commotion from the side of the complainant Somar Sai’s field, situated about 25 meters away. On reaching there, she saw the accused persons Bhaiyalal, Surendra, Suresh @ Pintu, Umashankar and Rajeshwar assaulting Somar Sai, and specifically stated that accused Suresh was armed with a stick and beating him, while the accused also abused him with caste-based words. She and her mother intervened and thereafter returned home. She further stated that Somar Sai belongs to Gond community. In cross-examination, she admitted that Somar Sai is related to her as grandfather and had brought her to court. She denied defence suggestions that she did not witness the incident, that the distance was 200 meters, or that Somar Sai sustained injury due to fall. She also denied the suggestion that the accused were harvesting their own crop and Somar Sai abused them, or that due to prior enmity she has given a false and tutored statement. She maintained that she reached the spot during the occurrence and had seen the accused persons beating Somar Sai. 12. PW-6 Sunil Yadav has deposed that he does not know the accused Suresh present in court. He stated that he had gone to Police Station Ramanujnagar from his village Telai Muda (about 10 km away) for lodging a report regarding a tractor incident in the government nursery. At that time, in the police station, the police seized a bamboo stick from one person, and a seizure memo (Ex. P-7) was prepared. He was declared hostile, but on being put leading questions by the Public 11 CRA No.908 of 2019 Prosecutor, he admitted that the accused Suresh (identified in court wearing a blue gamchha) had handed over the bamboo stick to the police, which was seized under Ex. P-7. In cross-examination, he admitted that in every village house lathis and sticks are kept, made of different types of wood, and used also for grazing cattle. He further stated that the seized stick was kept in the police station and then shown as seized. He denied the suggestion that he was a regular visitor to the police station and maintained that he went there only on that day for his own report. 13. PW-7 Rampatu has deposed that he is working as a sweeper at Community Health Centre, Ramanujnagar since 2006. He knows Dr. Rajshree Singh, Medical Officer at the same centre. He stated that he does not remember whether Dr. Rajshree Singh had given any document to the police. He admitted that his signature appears on seizure memo Ex. P-8 but claimed he did not know its contents. Being declared hostile, on leading questions by the Public Prosecutor, he denied that Dr. Rajshree Singh had handed over the bed-head ticket of injured Somar Sai to the police in his presence, and denied signing the memo as a witness to that fact. In cross-examination by defence, he stated nothing further. 14. PW-9 Dr. Rajshree Singh, Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Ramanujnagar since February 2017, deposed that on 26.11.2017, injured Somar Sai, son of late Premsai, aged about 50 years, resident of village Parmeshwarpur, was brought before her for 12 CRA No.908 of 2019 medical examination by Constable Ramsagar Sahu (Badge No. 801) on a requisition from Police Station Ramanujnagar. On examination, she found (i) swelling of size 2x2 cm on the forehead, and (ii) swelling of size 2x2 cm on the chest. In her opinion, both injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object, were simple in nature, and appeared to have been caused within 24 to 78 hours prior to the examination. She opined that such injuries could heal within 3 to 5 days. In cross- examination, she admitted that such injuries could also be caused by a fall on uneven ground, and that it is not necessary for such injuries to require hospital a0dmission. 15. From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of PW-1 Somar Sai (complainant), supported in part by PW-4 Rambai (wife) and PW-5 Manmati. However, the testimony of PW-1 is materially shaken in cross- examination. He candidly admitted that there has been a long-standing land dispute of over 8–10 years with accused Bhaiyalal, including previous civil and criminal litigation. He further admitted that Khasra No. 1152, where the alleged occurrence took place, stands recorded in the name of accused Bhaiyalal, while his own lands bear different khasra numbers. This admission seriously undermines his version that he was cultivating the disputed land on behalf of his mother-in-law, and provides a strong motive for false implication of the accused. 16. The prosecution’s independent witnesses have not supported its case. PW-2 Santoshi and PW-3 Bhagmaniya, both cited as eyewitnesses, 13 CRA No.908 of 2019 turned hostile and categorically stated that they did not see who assaulted Somar Sai. They also denied having made any police statement attributing assault or caste abuse to the accused. Their evidence thus fails to corroborate the complainant. PW-4 Rambai, though projecting herself as an eyewitness, is admittedly the complainant’s wife and therefore an interested witness. Her version does not align with that of PW-2 and PW-3, who were shown as present but denied witnessing any assault. PW-5 Manmati, grand daughter of the complainant, admitted she was brought to court by him, affecting her independence, and further contradicted the prosecution case by fixing the time of occurrence at 2–3 PM, whereas PW-1 and PW-4 stated it occurred around 4 PM. 17. The seizure witnesses also failed to support the case. PW-6 Sunil Yadav, a witness to the alleged seizure of sticks, turned hostile and admitted that lathis are common household items in villages, rendering the recovery meaningless. PW-7 Rampatu, cited as a witness to the seizure of the bed-head ticket, also did not support the prosecution. The medical evidence of PW-9 Dr. Rajshree Singh only shows that the complainant sustained two simple swellings, healing within 3–5 days. Importantly, she conceded in cross-examination that such injuries could have been caused by a fall on uneven ground, which accords with the defence explanation. 18. The allegation of caste abuse is also unsupported by reliable evidence. Though the complainant claims he was abused by caste name, no 14 CRA No.908 of 2019 independent witness has corroborated this version. For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, the essential requirement is that the abuse must be made by caste name in a place within public view. The Act was enacted to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from indignities, humiliations and harassment, and to punish perpetrators who commit such acts. However, in the present case, the prosecution has not produced any independent or public witness to establish this allegation. Mere assertion of the complainant, unsupported by others, does not meet the statutory requirement of “public view.” 19. Taken cumulatively, the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities: (i) material admissions of PW-1 regarding land dispute and ownership, (ii) hostility of independent witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, (iii) contradictions in timing and presence of witnesses, (iv) reliance only on partisan witnesses closely related to the complainant, (v) failure to prove the essential ingredients of caste-based abuse in public view, and (vi) medical evidence not conclusively supporting assault. 20. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself admitted to a long- standing land dispute with the accused, providing a strong motive for false implication. Independent witnesses, cited as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. The remaining witnesses are close relatives of the complainant, their testimonies 15 CRA No.908 of 2019 suffering from material contradictions and inconsistencies. The seizure evidence is unreliable, and the medical evidence merely indicates minor, simple injuries that could have resulted from causes other than assault. 21. Most significantly, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 namely, intentional caste abuse in a place within public view are not proved. No independent or public witness has corroborated this allegation. Mere assertions of the complainant and his relatives, unsupported by independent testimony, cannot sustain conviction under such a stringent statute. 22. In view of these infirmities, the findings of the trial court are unsustainable. The benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the appellants. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants cannot be upheld and are liable to be set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149, Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. 23. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellants are reported to be on bail; their bail bonds shall not be discharged forthwith but shall remain operative for a further period of six months in terms of Section 481 of the BNSS. 16 CRA No.908 of 2019 24. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul