1 2025:CGHC:41140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 588 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gourela District Bilaspur Chhattigarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Irshad Ahmad @ Monu S/o Shri Jameel Ansari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Tikarkala Police Station Gourela, District Bilaspur, Chhattsgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri SK Puriya, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 14/08/2025: 1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the CrPC against the judgment dated 2.4.2018 passed by the Special Judge, SCST (PA) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case SCST (PA) Act, 1989 No.4/2017 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 354 & 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (w) (i & KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.08.14 17:45:07 +0530 2 ii) & Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 31st December, 2016 at about 5 pm when the victim (PW-3) and her sister ‘K’ (PW-4) were at home and their mother ‘K’ (PW-2) had gone to the house of Mayank Agrawal to do the household/domestic work, the respondent/accused forcefully entered their house and with intention to outrage the modesty of the victim(PW-3), a girl aged about 18 years, caught hold of her hands and arms. When the victim protested for the same, the respondent/accused assaulted and slapped her on both the cheeks. When her sister ‘K’ (PW-4) came for rescue, the respondent/accused has also beaten her. The respondent/accused was aware of the caste of the victim, as she belongs to the Gond (ST community). Upon hearing the noise of quarrel, neighbouring people Rajesh Kumar (PW-6), Phoolbai (PW-7) & Ajay (PW-8) reached there and intervened. On the date of the incident, the victim has lodged an FIR (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Gourella at about 7.15 pm. The victim (PW-3) and her sister (PW-4) were medically examined vide Ex.-P/2 & P/3 respectively by Dr. Smt. Subhadra Paikra (PW-5). 3. Crime details form and sketch map were prepared vide Ex.-P/4. Caste certificate of the victim (Ex.-P/5) was obtained. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3 4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/10). The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record convicted the respondent/accused for commission of offence under Sections 451 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 months & to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with usual default stipulation. The respondent/accused was also held guilty by the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 323 (2 counts) of the IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on both the counts, with usual default stipulation. However, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused of the remaining charges and the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused be convicted for the remaining charges. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of statement of the victim (PW-3) and her sister (PW-4) would reveal that on the date of the incident, the respondent/ accused came to their house and started abusing them in filthy language in the name of mother and sister. When they raised objection, the respondent/accused after entering the house of 4 victim had slapped on her cheek, and also assaulted her sister and slapped her on her cheek. The victim (PW-3) has clearly deposed that when she and her sister were trying to oust the respondent/accused from their house, at that point of time, the respondent/accused caught hold of her and her sister’s hands. However, the victim has not stated that the respondent/accused entered their house with intention to outrage her modesty or with intention to commit any wrong with her. Further in examination-in- chief, the victim has stated that she does not know as to why the respondent/accused was abusing them. Though upon hearing the quarrel, neighbouring persons Rajesh Kumar (PW-6), Phoolbai (PW-7) & Ajay (PW-8) reached there, however, these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have completely turned hostile. Mother of the victim ‘K’ (PW-2) was not at home at the time of incident. 8. On the basis of statements of the victim and her sister, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the respondent/accused after entering the house assaulted both the sisters and accordingly convicted the respondent/accused as mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. Moreover, mere empty threat is not sufficient to attract the offence of criminal intimidation. 9. Considering the entire fact situation of the case, particularly the fact that the victim herself has not stated about the act of molestation done by the respondent/accused or that the incident happened only because the victim belongs to a particular 5 community, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and this Court does not find any good ground to take a different view of the matter. 10. In consequence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve