1 2025:CGHC:22877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1178 of 2022 Pragyesh Tiwari @ Bablu S/o Ramesh Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Dullaput, Police Station And Tehsil Pandariya,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi,, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 10.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. 2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mungeli (C.G.), in Special PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.10 16:15:53 +0530 2 Criminal Case No. 11/2021 by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) has been dismissed. The appellant is also aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2022 whereby the charged under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1) (य) (ख) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Act, 2005 have been framed against the appellant. 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the FIR of the incident was lodged on 15.06.2021 in respect of the incident happened on 14.06.2021, the FIR was lodged at the instance of one Yashoda Bai inter-alia on the allegation that her mother has been harassed and tortured by the co-accused persons, namely, Jagdish Gond, Sushila Bai, Rajju Gond, Sarojni Bai and Bharat, it was mentioned in the FIR that these accused persons have called the deceased as Tonahi and have harassed her and threatened to kill her therefore because of the said harassment the deceased has poured kerosene oil on herself, thereafter has set herself on fire and has committed suicide. After lodging of the FIR, the dying declaration of the deceased (Shabana Bai) was recorded before the Executive Magistrate whereby the deceased had categorically sated that she was called tonahi by Jagdish Gond, Sushila Bai, Rajju Gond, Sarojni Bai and Bharat and other villagers, but the name of the present appellant was nowhere to be found in the dying declaration as well in the FIR. The Police authorities after lodging of the FIR has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet ANNEXURE A/2 is the copy of the charge sheet. 4. After filing of the charge-sheet the appellant had preferred an application 3 under section 227 of the Cr.P.C which got rejected vide order dated 13.05.2022 and the learned Special Judge vide its order dated 19.05.2021 has framed the charges under section 306 of the IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the C.G. Tonahi Pratadna Act and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1) (य) (ख) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned trial Court while framing the charges has failed to appreciate the material available in the charge sheet. In the entire charge-sheet there is no material or the evidence to show that the appellant has committed the offence of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 merely because the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Sections cannot be attracted. In absence of any evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that victim was a member of Scheduled Caste the charges cannot be framed (Kishun Singh v. State of M.P.). it is also important to mention at this juncture that neither the deceased has mentioned the name of the appellant in the dying declaration neither the daughter of the deceased Yashoda Bai on whose instance the FIR has been lodged has mentioned the name of the present appellant in the FIR. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR or in the dying declaration therefore, offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. He also submit that the appellant has never instigated nor has called the deceased by the word ‘Tonahi’, therefore, the entire case against the appellant doesn’t stand in the eyes of laws. With regard to the offence under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is concerned same has been levelled against the appellant on 4 23.07.2021 i.e. after a month of lodging of the FIR just to make the case more severe against the present appellant. It is paramount to mention that by reading the FIR no offence under the Atrocities Act, 1989 has been made out. He further submits that as per the FIR as well as the dying declaration it has been mentioned by the deceased that the people in her village (Ghatoli, Lormi) have been calling her tonahi and have been harassing her. It is important to mention that the present appellant is resident of Pandariy, Dullapur, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) not of Ghatoli, Lormi, Mungeli (C.G.). Learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 2459 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2020(10) SCC 200. 6. Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the record of the case reveals that, there are more than sufficient materials present in the case for safely presuming that, the appellants have committed the alleged offence and there are sufficient grounds available to proceed against him and other accused persons. She further submits that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is just, proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of opinion that the order of the learned trial Court is just, proper, legal and strictly in 5 accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court which needs any interference of this Court, thus, this Court does not find any good ground raised by the appellant in the present matter and as such, this appeal stands dismissed. 9. As the matter pertains to the year 2022 and trial is still pending in the case, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the records of the case to the trial Court concerned within 48 hours, so that the trial may be brought to its logical end. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti