1 2025:CGHC:14350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1409 of 2023 Jyutlal Jaiswal S/o Late Amritlal Aged About 60 Years R/o Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station - Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.17/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 186 of the Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Indian Penal Code payment of fine to undergo SI for 5 days. Under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 5 days. Under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code SI for 10 days and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 10 days. Under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 10 days. (Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant, Govind Ram Kanwar, was posted as a Patwari at P.H. No. 16 Pamghad, Tehsil- Pamghad. On December 3, 2020, at 5:05 P.M., the complainant was working in his office when the accused arrived, verbally abused him, and started assaulting him, asking why he was not doing his job. The accused also damaged the documents of office, stamps, farmer's book, and revenue records. He broke the office chair's handle and damaged computer equipment. While leaving, the accused threatened to kill the complainant and tear down the iron door. The complainant had previously received threats from the accused, who claimed he would bring his relatives to kill the complainant. The complainant filed a written report (Ex. P-1) at Pamghad Police Station on December 3, 2020, which led to the registration of an FIR (Ex. P-3) under Sections 294, 506, 323, 3 353, 186, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, a site plan (Ex. P-4) and a damage report (Ex. P-13) of the broken chair, computer and printer were prepared. The broken chair handle and printer plate were seized, and a seizure memo (Ex. P-5) was prepared. The appellant's caste certificate (Article-1) was also seized, and a seizure memo (Ex. P-6) was prepared. The statements of the appellant and witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested, and an arrest memo (Ex. P- 11) was prepared. A site plan (Ex. P-8) was obtained from the Revenue Inspector, and after completing the necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 294, 506, 323, 353, 186, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-13). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellant the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the appellant never created any hindrance in 4 complainant’s official duty, the actual fact of the incident is that, the appellant visited the office of Patwari to obtain a map of the disputed land, but the complainant refused to provide it. Instead, the complainant misbehaved with the appellant, stared at him and said do not come to my office without money, thereafter, the appellant said to the complainant that it is his duty to pay revenue documents/map without any charges. He further submits that there is no any independent witnesses against the appellant, who affirmed the alleged offence, further the appellant did not cause any damage or destruction of any property of the complainant’s office, hence the sentence awarded by learned trial Court i.e. SI for 10 days and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is against the law. He also submits that the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant for SI for ten days and the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of 10 days from 01.01.2021 to 11.01.2021 during the trial and has already deposited the fine amount imposed upon him by the trial Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In this regard, the complainants Govindram Kanwar (PW-1), Maniram Kashyap (PW-2), Mohan Kaushik (PW-3), and Rajendra Yadav (PW-4) have stated that the petitioner belongs to Kanwar caste and falls under Scheduled Tribe category. The testimony of 5 these witnesses have not been challenged by the defence, and the accused, in response admitted that the complainant belongs to Kanwar caste and falls under Scheduled Tribe category and that accused himself belongs to Jaiswal caste. According to the testimony of Govindram Kanwar (PW-1) and Assistant Sub- Inspector Vasudev Singh (PW-6), the appellant's caste certificate (Article 1) was seized and a seizure memo (Ex.P-6) was prepared. Sukumar Chand, the then Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) (PW-9), stated that he issued the caste certificate (Ex. P-10, marked as Article-1) on May 21, 2003, after verifying the application and documents submitted by the complainant. This evidence was not disputed during cross-examination. Therefore, based on the presented evidence, the complainant’s caste certificate (Article-1), and the complainant’s admission, which is admissible as evidence under Section 313(4) of the CrPC, it is clear that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and the accused belongs to a different caste. 8. In order to establish the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined Govindram Kanwar (PW-1) who stated that the incident occurred on December 3, 2020. He was working in his office when the accused arrived at 5:05 P.M. and started abusing him, asking why he was not doing his job. He grabbed his collar and started assaulting him, trying to tear documents and stamp papers in his office. He also kicked his chair, breaking its handle, which was 6 attached to a printer. His colleagues, Mohan Kumar Kaushik, Rajendra Yadav and Maniram Kashyap, intervened and stopped the accused. The accused threatened him, saying, he will kill him and continued to abuse him. He also threatened to tear down the iron door at the back of his office. His actions scared him and hindered his official work. The accused left his office, still abusing him. Then, he reported the incident to his Superior Officer, who advised him to file a report at the Pamghar Police Station. She submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) and a written complaint (Ex. P-2) to the Court. Based on his report, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Pamghar Police Station (Ex. P-3). 9. Maniram Kashyap (PW-2) corroborated the statement of PW-1 and stated that on the day of incident, he was at the Patwari headquarters for official work. At around 5:00 P.M., the complainant was working when the accused arrived and demanded that his work be done. The complainant replied that he was working and would do the accused's task later. The accused then grabbed the complainant’s collar, kicked a chair, and broke its handle. He also abused the complainant and threatened to harm him before leaving. 10. Mohan Kaushik (PW-3) corroborated the statement of PW-1 and 2 and stated that on the day of the incident, he was at the Tehsil office in Pamgarh for work. He then visited the complainant’s office, where they were drinking tea in another room. The accused 7 arrived, abused the complainant, and threatened him before leaving and pushing a chair. 11. Rajendra Yadav (PW-4) also corroborated the statement of PW-1, 2 and 3 stated that on the day of the incident, he was standing outside the Tehsil office when he saw the accused abusing the complainant and threatening him. After the accused left, he entered the office to find it in disarray, with records scattered, a chair broken, and computer equipment damaged. 12. Although these witnesses did not mention any physical altercation between the accused and the complainant, their testimonies corroborate each other, confirming that the accused visited the complainant’s office on the day of the incident and had a dispute with him. 13. Considering the statement of the PW-1, 2, 3 and 4 who have specifically stated the act of the present appellant, the material available on record and evidence of other prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 186, 294, 353 and 427 of the IPC. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the said findings. 14. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby 8 upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 15. Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 16. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil