1 CRA No. 178 of 2016 2025:CGHC:30713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 178 of 2016 1 - Aakash @ Tillu S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Aged About 28 Years Occupation Business, R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, Thana Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahavir Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Sonand Prasad Agrawal Aged About 71 Years Occupation Business, R/o Mayapur, Ambikapur, Thana Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajak Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 04/07/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/01/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 21/2014 by the learned RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.07 14:35:09 +0530 2 CRA No. 178 of 2016 Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3 (I) (x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount further RI for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Complainant- Smt. Luti Lucia (henceforth ‘the Complainant’) belongs to Khes Oraon caste and comes under the Scheduled Tribe category. The Complainant used to buy goods from the grocery shop of Akash alias Tillu Agarwal (henceforth ‘A1’) and during this time she got acquainted with A1. When the Complainant’s husband retired from government service, A1 told her that if she buys land with the deposited money, she could get more money in future. The Complainant came under the aforesaid influence of A1, who, subsequently, prepared a contract agreement between the Complainant, Ramesh and one Parmeshwari on 16.06.2011 and in the name of purchasing land received Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively form the Complainant. Further, A1 also got the contract written in the name of Indrakunwar, resident of village Kailashpur and Samlal, resident of village Koldihha and obtained Rs. 1,70,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- from the Complainant. When, the Complainant asked him to get the land registered, A1 started making excuses. 3 CRA No. 178 of 2016 On the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2014, the Complainant along with her friends namely Sushila, Balsundar and Lalla Yadav had gone to the shop of A1 for getting the money returned then A1 and appellant - Mahavir Prasad (henceforth ‘A2’) abused the complainant on her Caste and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the written report made by the Complainant at Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur on 11/03/2014, FIR was registered against the appellants and Investigation was carried on. During the investigation, Spot Map was prepared; caste certificate of the Complainant was seized; statements of the witnesses were recorded; and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 3. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 20/01/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the Complainant used to purchase the goods on credit from the shop of the 4 CRA No. 178 of 2016 appellants and had in lieu of that she had given a cheque to A1, which got subsequently, dishonored and A1 asked about the same to the Complainant, then the FIR has been lodged against the appellants on the basis of concocted fact to implicate the appellants falsely. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the Complainant as such, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 5. Ms. R.C.S. Deo, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Complainant (PW3) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she is acquainted with A1 before the incident since 2011 . She often used to go to his shop for buying goods etc. During such period, A1 told her that some tribal people want to sell their land, will she buy it. A1 also told her that he will get the land at a low price, subsequently, had gone to see the land with her husband. While seeing the land, she liked some land and she told A1 that I like the land. Thereafter, A1 introduced her to the owner of the land, then brought Indrakunwar's grandson who told his name as Raju. That person told the price of the land as Rs. 3,00,000/-. . In reply, she said that she don't have the full amount right now. However, 5 CRA No. 178 of 2016 the agreement was done in the court. This witness further deposed that she went to the shop of A1 and gave Rs. 1,70,00/- to a person named Raju. She deposed that an agreemtn was done in the Ambikapur Court in this regard. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that she went to the shop of A1 and gave the money. She deposed that at the same time, Raju and A1 said that they need money and have to take ther grandmother to Raipur for treatment, please give the rest of the money by tomorrow. She went the next day and gave Rs. 90,000/- to A-1. Similarly, A1 took 10,000/-, 40,000/- and 20,000/- rupees which she wrote in the diary and A1 had signed that diary. She also deposed that after giving the money, when she asked him to get the land registered, A1 kept on delaying and said that when Raju's grandmother comes, he will get the land registered. This witness further stated that subsequently, she came to know that the actual name of Raju was Heerasai, thereafter, she asked A1 to refund the money, on which, A1 was making excuses. Thereafter, on the date of incident, when she along with her driver and Sushila went to the shop of the appellants for taking the money back, the appellants abused her on caste and threatened her. In cross-examination, this witness has submitted that all the land related agreements were done in the court. She admitted that she had given money to the land owners with whom she had made the land agreement. She stated that she had not given the full amount of the land to the land owners. She stated that she had told that she would give the full amount of the land at the time of registration. She admitted that the 6 CRA No. 178 of 2016 land owner had said that when they get the full amount of the land, they will register the register the land. This witness voluntarily says that she had given the full amount of the land to the A1. She admitted the fact that she had no agreement with A1 in this regard. She admitted that she used to buy goods from the shop of A1. She admitted that before the incident, she had good relations with the accused. She admitted that she had never mentioned about the Cheque given to the appellant, in her written report (Ex.P/2) as well as her statement (Ex.P/6). 8. Sushila (PW2) in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of incident, she along with the Complainant had gone to the shop of the appellant for taking the money back, but the appellants abused them on their caste and threatened her. In cross-examination, she admitted that the Complainant is her sister. She admitted that they used to buy goods from the shop of the appellants. 9. Balsundar (PW5) who is a driver of the Complainant, in his deposition has stated that he along with the Complainant and Sushila had gone to the shop of the appellant for taking the money back. He deposed that the Complainant had told her that she is going to take her money back from the appellants, which was given for purchasing the land. He stated that the appellants had abused the Complainant on her caste. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that while the appellants were abusing the Complainant, A2 was holding the knife in one hand and Danda in another hand. 10. Lalla Yadav (PW7) has deposed that the Complainant used to go to the 7 CRA No. 178 of 2016 Shop of the appellant. She admitted that she has no knowledge about the incident. Subsequently, this witness has been declared hostile. In para- 4, this witness was shown his police statement (Ex.P/10) , which he denied to have given. 11. Heeralal (PW8) in his deposition has stated that he has no knowledge about the incident. He deposed that nothing was seized in front of him, though there is his signature on seizure (Ex.P/5). 12. From bare perusal of the statements of the above witnesses, it is apparent that there are material contradictions in their statements. It is apparent that PW7 and PW8 have not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas PW5, Heeralal had made contradictory statement that when the appellants were abusing the Complainant, A2 was holding knife and Danda, which no where has been stated by the Complainant and even by PW3, Sushila. 13. Apart from this, perusal of the statement of the Complainant, it comes out that the Complainant has never mentioned about the fact of giving the Cheque (Ex.D/2) of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in her written report (Ex.P/2), which she, later on, admitted in her cross-examination that she had given the same for payment of the land. In para 11, she denied that she had never given the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellants in relation to credit purchase. 14. Thus, from the above evidence, it is apparent that there are some dispute regarding sale & purchase of land between the complainant and A1 and 8 CRA No. 178 of 2016 even the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was given by the Complainant to A1 for credit purchase, when got dishonored, the complaint has been lodged by the Complainant. There are contradictory statements of the witnesses as such, looking to the overall evidence and by analyzing the genesis of the case, the antecedents prior to lodging of complaint by the Complainant, the possibility of false implication of appellants cannot be rule out. Hence, the benefit of doubt should always be extended towards the appellants. 15. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 17. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri