1 2025:CGHC:23747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 24 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Mandir Hasaud,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. versus 1 - Vishwamohan Rai S/o Late Mishrilal Rai Aged About 42 Years R/o Sai Colony, Madir Hasaud, Distt- Raipur, Cg 2 - Sanjivan Rai W/o Vishwamohan Rai Aged About 40 Years R/o Sai Colony, Madir Hasaud, Distt- Raipur, Cg ... Respondents. For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA. For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 13.06.2025 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "Act 1989") against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.187/2017, whereby, respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 294 and 506-II of the IPC and Sections 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Act 1989. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.06.16 14:21:08 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Smt. Shanta Kosariya given her land to the accused persons to reside and accused persons after construction of the house started residing in such land. The complainant is also residing along with her son in front of the said house. On 20.07.2016 in the night at about 11:30 respondent No.1 and his wife respondent No.2 abused the complainant and assaulted her by using hands and fists. It is alleged that accused persons used to quarrel with the complainant frequently. The information regarding the aforesaid incident was given to the Police Station, Mandir Hasuad by the complainant which was registered in Roznamcha Sanha vide Ex.P-3. After enquiry, an FIR was registered against the respondents/accused on 21.07.2016 vide Ex.P-5. The complainant/victim (PW-1) was examined by Dr. Vijaylaxmi Anand (PW-4) who prepared MLC report vide Ex.P-2. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondents/accused stated that they have been falsely implicated, however, they have not adduced any evidence in their defence. 4. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge mentioned above. Against the 3 impugned judgment of acquittal, present appeal has been filed by the State. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the trial Court committed error in acquitting the respondents from the alleged offences. He prays to allow the appeal and to set-aside the impugned judgment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the evidence on record, it appears that there was old dispute between the complainant (PW-1) and respondent/accused with regard to subject land as the complainant alleged that the subject land belongs to her. However, during trial, she has not produced or proved any document to establish that subject property belonged to her. Further, the trial Court found that the victim (PW-1) exaggerated her version and her statement was not found reliable and her statement was not also corroborated with the statement of doctor (PW-4) with regard to alleged incident. Heera Baghel (PW-3) who is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the complainant though stated that 4 she heard abusive words at the relevant time, however, in the cross- examination she specifically admitted the fact that she has not seen the persons who were quarreling with the complainant and stated that at the relevant time so many persons of locality were present on the spot. Apart from the said witnesses, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Further, though the prosecution has produced the caste certificate of the complainant, however, the prosecution has not examined the concerned Tahsildar who has issued the said certificate. From the evidence of the witnesses and facts of the case, it is clear that there was old dispute between the parties and offence has not been committed on account of caste based atrocities. 9. It is well established that in the quarrel only threat is not sufficient to attract an offence of criminal intimidation and further to prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. 10.In the matter of Kali Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh [AIR 1973 SC 2773] it is held that a golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. It is 5 also observed that "certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations". 11.In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the aforesaid principle, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and the judgment of acquittal has been passed after proper appreciation of record and thus the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 12.Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay.