1 2025:CGHC:43509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 426 of 2019 Smt. Anita Devi W/o Bablu, aged about 30 Years, R/o Kardoni, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Aashu @ Kavita Ram S/o Hasim Lohar, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Kardoni, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Rakhi D/o Hasim Lohar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kardoni, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Hasim @ Hasib S/o Heera Sai Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kardoni, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. {Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery} For Appellant : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Res No.1/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.08.29 17:24:06 +0530 2 28.08.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Surguja (Ambikapur) (for short the "SC/ST Act") in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No.72/2017, whereby, the respondents No.2 to 4/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the trial Court has convicted all the respondents/accused under Sections 294 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/-, respectively, and respondent No.4 has been convicted for the additional offence under Section 506 (Part-II) IPC with fine of Rs.500/-, with usual default stipulation. Further, all the respondent/accused were sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by them during custody. It is also informed at the Bar that against the conviction, a separate appeal has been preferred by the accused. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.06.2017 in the morning at about 6 am the appellant/complainant (PW-1) had gone to hand- pump for fetching water. The accused Ashu who was present there started quarreling with her by saying that she has built house on their land and also objected as to why she came to hand-pump and 3 uttered filthy language and passed caste based remark. On hearing quarrel, respondent No.2, 3 and one juvenile in conflict with law (HL) reached the spot and starting abusing the complainant in name of mother and sister and also threatened to kill her. It is also alleged that the accused persons slammed the complainant on the floor and accused Ashu beaten the complainant by using stone, due to which, she sustained injuries on various parts of her body. The said incident was seen by Rajmani, Pooja and Bigani. However, Pooja and Bigani were not examined by the prosecution. 4. After the aforesaid incident, the complainant lodged an FIR (Ex.P- 1) against the respondents/accused at Police Station Lundra, Ambikapur (Surguja) on the same day. Since the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, her caste certificate (Ex.P- 3) was seized by property seizure memo vide Ex.P-2. Crime details form and sketch map of the incident place was prepared vide Ex.P- 4. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh (PW-4) who gave his medical report vide Ex.P-5. One stone was seized vide Ex.P-7. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondents No.2 to 4. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. Statements of the respondents/accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they pleaded innocence and false 4 implication, however, they have not adduced any defence evidence. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in Para 2 of this judgment and acquitted them of the charge under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal for the said offence, the complainant/appellant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though material evidence is available on record to establish that respondents/accused insulted and intimidated the appellant/complainant as she belongs to scheduled caste community. Therefore, offence under the Atrocities Act is made out against them and the trial Court has wrongly acquitted them of the charges under the SC/ST Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5 10. In the present case the trial Court has convicted the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the charge under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, against which the complainant has preferred this appeal. For the sake of brevity the said provisions are reproduced hereunder:- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (a) ……………………………………………… (b) ……………………………………………… *** *** *** (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; *** *** *** (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;" 6 11. Perusal of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act would show that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates or abuses with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. 12. It is not in dispute that the place where incident occurred is a public place situated in an open area as reflected from sketch map (Ex.P-4). 13. The complainant Anita Devi (PW-1) in her cross-examination categorically admitted the fact that from their community 10-12 families are using the said hand-pump. Even on the date of incident i.e. 09.06.2017 Smt. Rajmani Bai (PW-5) who is relative of the complainant had gone for fetching water to the said hand- pump and witnessed the incident. However, no dispute occurred with her while she was fetching water from the said hand-pump. So the trial Court has rightly observed that there was no dispute of caste with regard to fetching of water from the said hand-pump. 14. Further, from the evidence of the witnesses and from the FIR (Ex.P- 1), it appears that the main dispute was between the accused, their family and family of the complainant. In the FIR, the complainant herself mentioned that when she went for fetching water to the hand-pump, the accused Ashu asked her as to why they have built a house on their land and thereafter dispute arose between the 7 accused and complainant. Further, the FIR has been lodged only against three persons and in the FIR there is no mention about elder member of the family who is respondent No.4 Hasim @ Hasib and the complainant only mentioned about Ashu (respondent No.2) and his sister Ku. Rakhi (respondent No.3) and one juvenile in conflict with law (HL). Furthermore, during investigation while recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, the complainant has improved her statement and roped elder member of the family by stating that he was also present on the spot and provoking the other accused. 15. Apart from the above, Rajmani Bai is the only independent witness who has been examined as PW-5. She is close relative of the complainant and she alleged to have seen the incident. However, she has been declared hostile. She clearly deposed that respondent No.4 was not saying to kill the complainant and denied her version recorded in the police statement (Ex.P-6). In such circumstances, it appears that the said dispute has been given the colour of caste based atrocity and the complainant herself is not reliable witness with regard to uttering of caste based remarks or caste based atrocity on the date of incident. 16. 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, 8 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. 17. 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. 18. It is also well established that the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence punishable under the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. {See : Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of UP and Anr [(2023) 17 SCC 615} 9 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court herein-above, this Court is of the view that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to caste based atrocity and thus the appellant/complainant has failed to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned findings arrived at by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under the SC/ST Act. 20. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay