1 2025:CGHC:12882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1394 of 2023 Narayan Yadav @ Banti Yadav S/o Shri Pandaram Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Fingeshwar, Police Station- Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) 1989, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 49/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Conviction under Section Fine In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment Section 323 of the IPC (Count-2) Rs. 1000/- 01 months Section 353 of the IPC Rs.500/- 15 days Section 186 of the IPC Rs. 200/- 10 days 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra lodged a report in the Phingeshwar police station to the effect that he is posted as a doctor in the Community Health Center Phingeshwar and was on night duty on 21.05.2021. At around 10.30 pm, the hospital watchman Narayan Yadav started telling him to stop his doctoring, run out of the hospital, you people are from outside and started abusing him, about which he informed his colleague doctor B.K. Dhruv through phone. When Dr. Dhruv came and asked him what he was doing, the accused said to Dr. B.K. Dhruv, the who is he and abused him and saying tribal, Gond, uneducated man and while obstructing his official work, he beat him with his hands and fists. Ashish Mandavi and other staff members saw the incident and intervened. The accused abused him and Dr. Dhruv and threatened to kill them, and beat him with his hands and fists, due to which he got injured on both his hands, shoulder, chest and Dr. Dhruv's left hand, shoulder and chest. On the basis of the above report of the 3 complainant, FIR No. 95/2021 was registered against the accused in Police Station Phingeshwar under Sections 294, 506, 323, 186, 332, 353, Indian Penal Code and FIR No. 1 was registered. The map of the crime spot was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The accused was arrested. In the case, the offence under Section 3 (2) (V) D Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added and after other necessary proceedings of investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused under Sections 294, 506, 323, 186, 332, 353, IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) d Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The accused was charged under sections 294, 506 (part 2), 323 (count 2), 186, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (r) and 3 (2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and read out to him. After being told and explained the charges, he denied the charges and claimed trial. In the trial, he pleaded not guilty but did not produce any defence evidence. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-18). 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, this appeal. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider complete fact and evidence available on records, so arbitrary and in contradictory to the law. Hence deserve to set- aside. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that except the doctors none of the independent witnesses have been supported the case of the prosecution and also failed to see that the prosecution not established any motive behind the crime, the appellant is subordinate to the complainants, they have made false report against the appellant. Further, the independent witnesses Ashish Mandavi and Prakash Kumar Sahu not supported the case of prosecution declared hostile. It is alleged that appellant was consumed liquor during the duty but allegation was not supported by the any medical report. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that Ashish Mandavi and other staff members are the eye witnesses of the incident and the trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is sought for. 5 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the applicants Dr. Aditya Chopra and Dr. B.K. Dhruv by assaulting them using obscene language in a public place at Community Health Centre, Phingeshwa at about 10.30 pm on 21.05.2021 and to other people who were listening to him and threatened to kill them with the intent to cause intimidation and to deter them from discharging their official duty? 9. Dr. P. Kudeshiya (PW-2) has stated in his statement that on 22.05.2021, when he examined Dr. B.K. Dhruv, he had stated that he was having pain in both arms and there were scratch marks on his chest which were of ordinary nature. He had given the examination report (Ex.P-6). According to the witness, on the same date, when he examined Dr. Aditya Chopra, he had stated that he was having pain in both arms and there were scratch marks of ordinary nature on his cheek and the injured had stated that he was having pain in the entire body. His examination report is Ex.P-7. The said medical witness has not made any contrary statement in the cross-examination. Thus, his statement and the report given confirm the fact that the injured in the case had received injuries of ordinary nature on the date of the incident. 6 10. Now it has to be seen in the case whether the injuries found on the bodies of Dr. Aditya Chopra and Dr. B.K. Dhruv were caused by the accused? 11. In this regard, Dr. Aditya Chopra (PW-1) has stated that the incident took place in May 2021. That time, the Covid pandemic was going on and he was on duty at CHC Fingeshwar. He went on a round to see a patient admitted in the hospital ward at around 10-10.30 pm during his duty. At that time, the accused was found in the hospital in an inebriated state, so he told the accused that you are in an inebriated state, so instead of being on duty, go to your home, then the accused started saying to him that you people have come from outside and teach us, stop your medical practice and go away from here, saying this, he started abusing him and threatened to kill him. The accused called him a mother- fucker and abused his mother and sister, which felt bad to hear. After being abused and threatened to kill by the accused, he called his colleague Dr. B.K. Dhruv to the hospital by phone, then Dr. B.K. Dhruv came to the hospital. At that time, the accused was in the hospital itself. Dr. B.K. Dhruv told the accused to go home, then the accused started abusing Dr. B. K. Dhruv and used abusive caste language by calling him Adivasi, Gond and uneducated and said that you have got a job for free and are teaching us. After this the accused started scuffling with Dr. B. K. Dhruv and started beating him with his hands and fists and also used filthy abuses like motherfucker which was bad to hear. The 7 accused also threatened to kill Dr. Dhruv. Due to the accused beating Dr. B. K. Dhruv with his hands and fists, Dr. B. K. Dhruv suffered injuries on his hands and shoulders. When the accused was beating Dr. B. K. Dhruv, he tried to intervene the accused manhandled him as well. Thereafter, on a phone call by Dr. B.K. Dhruv, the police from Phingeshwar police station came to the scene and took the accused from the hospital to the police station. Thereafter, he and Dr. B.K. Dhruv went to Phingeshwar police station and got an FIR registered against the accused (Ex.P-1). The police came to the scene and made a map (Ex.P-2) and the patwari made a map (Ex.P-3). The police got his injuries treated. The police gave him a notice (Ex.P-4) and asked for documents regarding his appointment in government service. Then he gave his appointment order and joining report to the police (Ex.P-5). 12. Dr. B.K. Dhruv (PW-3) has stated that the accused is posted as watchman in the Community Health Centre, Phingeshwar and he is posted as a doctor. He was posted on the post. On the night of the incident date 21/05/2021, at around 10:30 pm, the accused came after drinking alcohol. At that time, the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra was on night duty at the Community Health Center, Fingeshwar. The accused, under the influence of alcohol, was creating a ruckus in the hospital by abusing the applicant Dr. Chopra. Then, on receiving the above information from the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra, he went to the hospital and explained to the accused and asked him to go home, then the 8 accused started abusing him too and said that you have come from outside and have got a job for a fee, what can you people do to me and the accused started pushing and shoving with him and also tore the T-shirt he was wearing. The accused called him a motherfucker and also used caste-specific abuses, which he felt very bad about. During the same time, the accused also pushed and abused the complainant Dr. Aditya. Due to the pushing by the accused, he got injured in his chest and Dr. Aditya Chopra also got injured. When he called the police station at Phingeshwar and the police arrived, the accused started pushing the policemen as well. After that, the police took the accused to the police station. 13. Ashish Mandavi (PW-3) has stated that he was on duty on 21st May 2021 at around 10:30 pm. At that time the accused was not on duty in the hospital but the accused had come to the hospital and was talking on the phone. After this, as the accused was not assigned duty, the accused called Dr. Aditya, then Dr. Aditya came to the hospital. At that time also the accused was in the hospital. At that time the accused had told Dr. Aditya Chopra that the person on duty has not come to the hospital, you people are practicing here, I will do my duty here and while abusing Dr. Aditya Chopra, he called him mother-fucker. Dr. Aditya Chopra refused to say so but the accused continued abusing. On this, Dr. Aditya Chopra called another doctor G.K. Dhruv and Dr. Dhruv also came to the hospital. Dr. Dhruv had told the accused that it is not your duty, go back. The accused told Dr Dhruv that you people 9 have come from outside, I am a local, what can you do to me. The accused also abused Dr. Dhruv. After this, a scuffle broke out between the accused and Dr Dhruv. Dr Aditya Chopra was also pushed around. He did not see whether Dr. Dhruv and Dr. Aditya Chopra were hurt or not. He and the staff intervened. 14. Thus, the entire statement of important witnesses of the incident, complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra (PW-1), Dr. B. K. Dhruv (PW-3) and Ashish Mandavi (PW-4) shows that the accused had pushed and beaten the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra, Dr. B. K. Dhruv on the date, time and place of the incident. As per the above, the entire evidence of the above witnesses regarding the incident cannot be denied on the basis of minor contradictions and omissions. Accordingly, the fact of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra and Dr. B. K. Dhruv by the accused on the date, time and place of the incident is proved beyond doubt. 15. As has been mentioned above, at the time of the incident, the applicant Dr. Aditya Chopra (PW-1) and Dr. B. K. Dhruv (PW-3) were public servants performing their official duties. In such circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused obstructed the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra and Dr. B. K. Dhruv in discharging their duties as public servants and attacked them with the intent to deter them from discharging their duties. 10 16. Human Singh Dhruv (ASI) (PW-7) stated that he had registered the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) against the accused at the police station Phingeshwar on the information of the complainant Aditya Chopra. During the investigation, he had prepared the site map of the incident (Ex.P-2) in the presence of the complainant on 22/05/21. During the investigation, he had sent the report (Ex.P-6 and 7) to Dr. V.K. Dhruv and Dr. Aditya Chopra for medical examination at the Community Health Center Phingeshwar. During the investigation, he had sent the information (Ex.P-15) of Section 3 (2) (V) SC ST Act being added to the case to Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajim, District Gariaband. He had arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses as per the sheet (Ex.P-16) and had informed the family of the accused about the arrest. 17. Sanjay Dhruv (DSP) (PW-8) states that while he was posted as SDOP Gariaband, on receipt of the case diary, during further investigation he had recorded the statements of witness Dr. VK Dhruv, complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra, witness Ashish Kumar Mandavi, Sanjay Srivastava, Prakash Sahu, Raghvendra Netam as per their instructions. He has not added or subtracted anything from their statements. 18. Statements of the above two investigating officers could not be refuted by the defence. Accordingly, the investigation conducted by them cannot be considered doubtful. Keeping in view the 11 above evidence analysis, there is no need for a detailed analysis of the statements of the above two investigating officers. 19. It is clear from the above analysis and the entire statement of important witnesses of the incident, complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra (PW-1), Dr. B. K. Dhruv (PW-3) and Ashish Mandavi (PW- 4) that the accused had pushed and beaten the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra, Dr. B. K. Dhruv on the date, time and place of the incident. Accordingly, the fact of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant Dr. Aditya Chopra and Dr. B. K. Dhruv by the accused on the date, time and place of the incident is proved beyond doubt. 20. Hence observing the above stated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 323 of the IPC, Section 353 of the IPC and under Section 186 of the IPC. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 21. 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 awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal