1 2025:CGHC:35909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 153 of 2022 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Rajendra Sahu S/o Bholaram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kapartunga, Police Station Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent : None Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.07.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act/69/2019, whereby, the respondent/ accused has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.25 12:47:47 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20.04.2019, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant/victim before the Police Station, Baramkela, District Raigarh, alleging therein, that on the date of incident, i.e. 19.04.2019, in the morning around 8.30 am, owing to previous land dispute for construction of the boundary wall, the respondent/accused- Rajendra Sahu, while abusing her with filthy language, assaulted her by hands and fists and with the aid of axe and threatened her for life. On the basis of the alleged complaint (Ex. P-1), the concerned Police Station has registered an FIR (Ex.P-2) on the same day itself, i.e. 20.04.2019 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of IPC and, during the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was examined medically by Dr. Nilkumari Patel (PW-7), who vide her report (Ex. P-5) found simple injuries on her body and, the ‘caste certificate’ (Article A-1) of her, was recovered vide Ex.P-4 from her and, the bamboo stick was recovered from the respondent- Rajendra Sahu vide Ex.P-7 on 03.10.2019 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramakant Sahu (PW-8) and one Kiran Chouhan and, after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Raigarh for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(rs) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and based upon the materials available on record, the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act have been framed against the respondent, which was 3 denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the respondent is involved in connection with the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her sister-in-law, namely, Dashoda (PW-2), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections Sections 294, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Perusal of the written report (Ex.P-1), lodged by the prosecutrix on 20.04.2019, would reveal the fact that certain land was sold by her sister-in-law (Devrani), namely, Sadhmati Chouhan to one Bhola Sahu, the father of the respondent- Rajendra Sahu and when he was raising the construction of a 4 boundary wall, an altercation took place with her sisters-in-law, namely, Dashoda Chouhan, Mogra Chouhan and Basanta Chouhan and when she(complainant) intervened the matter, she was assaulted by the respondent with the aid of axe, while abusing her using the filthy words and that by threatening her to kill. Although, it was alleged by her as such, but when she was examined before the Court as PW-1, it was, however, stated that on the said fateful day, the respondent came with axe, while his father was holding the stick and the respondent has assaulted her while throwing the alleged axe, owing to which, she sustained injuries on her head and left hand. It appears further from her testimony that, apart from the alleged assault, nothing was told by him to her, as was alleged by her in the said written report (Ex.P-1) and, even the handscript of Ex.P-1 was not of her where she has just put her signature, as revealed from para 4 of her testimony. 7. Dashoda (PW-2), who was the prosecutrix’s sister-in-law has stated at para 2, that on the said fateful day, when the respondent’s father was constructing a wall, the respondent came with axe and stick and assaulted the prosecutrix by saying that why the boundary wall is being broken, while abusing her using the filthy words, however, the said version was not of the prosecutrix, as revealed from her statement (Ex.P-1). 8. Sahani Ram (PW-3) is the husband of the prosecutrix and it appears from his testimony that on the said fateful day, the respondent- Rajendra Sahu was holding the axe, while his father- Bhola was holding the stick and, the respondent has assaulted his wife, while throwing the alleged axe. 5 9. It is to be seen that although, it was stated by the prosecutrix, her said sister-in-law and husband, that with the aid of axe, she was assaulted by the respondent, but the alleged weapon was, however, not found to be seized from him and, instead, a bamboo stick was found to be recovered from him vide Ex. P-7 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramakant Sahu and Kiran Chouhan and, Ramakant Sahu, who was examined as (PW-8), has, however, not supported the same. There is, thus, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed by the prosecution that at that particular time, the prosecutrix was assaulted by the respondent with the aid of axe or was abused by him with filthy words in the name of her ‘caste’ and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita