1 2025:CGHC:37630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 215 of 2023 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • Raghuraj Diwan S/o Late Jagdish Diwan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Girola Kondagaon, Police Station AJAK Kondagaon, District Kondgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate appears alongwith Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 31/07/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 24/12/2022 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.31 18:59:08 +0530 2 Act, 1989, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case SCST(PA) Act 1989 No.20/2020, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- Raghuraj Diwan has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Kamla Netam (PW-1) and 5 others, namely, Smt. Ginai Netam, Smt. Radhabai Netam, Smt. Jamuna Bai, Smt. Neela Bai and Smt. Subli Bai on 07/10/2020, alleging therein that on 01/09/2020 at 11:00 AM, a meeting was convened in the house of one Sukhdas Sethia owing to some land dispute with one Sanat Diwan, the relative of the respondent- Raghuraj Diwan, where, after the meeting was over, the respondent (Raghuraj Diwan) came and started abusing them while using filthy words in the name of their castes on a road. It, however, appears from a bare perusal of the statement of Kamla Netam, who was examined as PW-1, that the respondent has abused as such in the courtyard of the house of said Sukhdas Sethia, which is adjoining to the road. Her statement is, thus, appears to be deviated from her report lodged on 07/10/2020 (Ex.P-1) that he abused them on the road. Insofar as, the statement of Ginai Bai (PW-2), the another complainant is concerned, it appears that at the time of meeting, held in the house of said 3 Sukhdas Sethia, the respondent came and started abusing them while using filthy words in the name of their castes. She has, thus, not stated that the alleged act of him (respondent) was done either in the courtyard of said Sukhdas Sethia or on the road. It appears further from her testimony that before lodging the report (Ex.P-1), she has, however, not read the same and, similar is the statement of other complainants, namely, Smt. Radha Bai (PW-3), Smt. Jamuna Bai (PW-4) and Smt. Subli Bai (PW-5). It, thus, appears from perusal of their testimonies that the respondent has not used the alleged filthy words in the public place while abusing them in the name of their castes. 3) That apart, the alleged incident, alleged to have occurred on 01/09/2020, but the report was lodged only on 07/10/2020, i.e. after passing of a considerable period of 37 days without explaining any plausible reasons as to why it was lodged after passing of such a considerable period of 37 days. 4) In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any substance in this appeal. 5) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant 4