1 2025:CGHC:41987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 194 of 2020 1 - Shatruhan Kumar Baghel S/o Munshi Ram Baghel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jora, Chowki Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (complainant) ...Appellant. versus 1 - Samaru Ram Yadav S/o Surit Ram Yadav, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jora, Chowki Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (accused). 2 - Shyam S/o Surit Ram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jora, Chowki Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (accused) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s). For Appellant : Shri Gorelal Tandon appears on behalf of Shri Basant Kaiwartya, Advocates. For State/respondent : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 20/08/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar (CG.) in Special Sessions Case No.24/2018 whereby, Respondent No.1 & 2/accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 of IPC and 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 17:26:33 +0530 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter “the Act, 1989”). 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant/appellant had filed a written complaint (Ex.P/1) with the police chowki Bhatgaon, police station Bilaigarh stating that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 both the brothers have beaten him by using hands and fists and also abused him on account of some money transaction. The said incident was witnessed by Gangaram (PW-5). Based on aforesaid information, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered with the police station Bilaigarh. 3. Victim refused to get himself examined for the injuries vide Ex.P/3. Crime details form and sketch map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Patwari prepared the map vide Ex.P/5A. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P/6 as the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category and shirt of the complainant was also seized vide Ex.P/7. 4. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited 12 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12 and Article 1- caste certificate of the complainant. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Respondent Nos.1 & 2 pleaded false implication and took a specific plea that complainant had not paid wages to Respondent No.2/accused and false report has been made by the complainant. 7. After evaluating the evidence available on record, learned trial Court convicted the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for the offence under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 additional simple imprisonment for one month each, however, learned trial Court has acquitted the said respondents of the charges as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, therefore, this Appeal may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that State has not preferred any appeal. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11.In the written complaint (Ex.P/1) filed by the appellant/complainant, no specific words have been mentioned as to what words were uttered at the time of quarrel. Further, the complaint itself shows that there was dispute about payment of money. Considering the material omissions in the written complaint and the FIR (Ex.P/2) as also for the reason that independent witnesses namely Jayprakash (PW-2), Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) & Gangaram (PW-5) have not supported the case of prosecution regarding the caste based abuse, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that no such offence has been made out is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and there is no infirmity or illegality in the said finding. 12.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash