1 2025:CGHC:2564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 19 of 2016 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ...Appellant/State versus Kapileshwar @ Kalpeshwar S/o Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Tractor Driver, R/o. Village Salihabhata, Manjhapara P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/Accused For Appellant/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent/Accused : None present. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 15.01.2025 1. This acquittal appeal is filed by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Criminal Case No. 15/2011, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Hence, the present acquittal appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e., 13.03.2011 at about 4:00 pm the complainant (PW-01) had gone to AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.01.22 17:07:06 +0530 2 fetch water with drum, while she was returning after fetching water in drum, the accused/ respondent came from back side of her, caught her and obstructed her right breast with his hand and upon her objection, she screamed and the drum fall down, but the accused person abused with filthily language and then she came home, crying and narrated the whole incident to her father and her sister-in-law that the accused abused her with filthy language by uttering slang in the name of mother and sister. The whole incident took place in the front field of Reshamlal Paikra and the whole incident saw by Khema Sidar, who had gone to wash pulses. Thereafter the complainant (PW-01) and her family members tried to convene a village meeting, but no one appeared in meeting, which caused delay in lodging complaint (Ex. P/1) on 15.03.2011 and on the basis of said written complaint, report lodged by Police Station-Tamnar for offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and started the investigation. Complainant was sent to CHC, Tamnar for medical examination and thereby received report. Since the offence was under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the FIR was sent to Police Station- A.JA.K., Raigarh, where its number has been registered. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, caste certificate was seized, spot map was prepared and accused person was arrested. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate against the accused and thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) and the accused person was put to trial for the offence under Sections 294 & 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) 3 (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Before the learned trial Court, prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and statement of the accused person/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent of Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, this appeal filed by the Appellant/State. 5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent of the offence charged under the Special Act. Learned Trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence of complainant and her supporting witnesses to the effect that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community for want of any documentary evidence. He would further submit that learned Trial Court did not appreciate statement of complainant (PW-01) and other witnesses and on technical grounds, acquitted the respondent under Special Act, however the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all prosecution witnesses categorically stated against the accused person, but, the learned Trial Court passed the judgment of acquittal under Special Act in a mechanical manner, which is liable to be set aside. 6. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service of 4 notice. 7. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is vivid from record of learned Trial Court that learned Trial Court framed charge under Sections 294 & 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused person/respondent. Prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused/respondent and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the accused under sections of IPC and acquitted the accused under Special Act (Atrocities Act), as learned Trial Court found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Special Act (Atrocities Act) against the accused person/ respondent. 9. It is quite vivid from the record of learned Trial Court that learned Trial court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that prosecution did not file any caste certificate of the complainant (PW-01) issued by the competent authority, thus prosecution has failed to prove this fact that complainant (PW-01) belongs to scheduled tribe. 10. Complainant (PW-01) has stated in her examination-in-chief that she belongs to Urao Caste, when this question was asked to the accused/respondent in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as question No. 1, he answered that he knows her, but he did not know 5 about her caste. So, it is clear from statement of accused that he denied this fact that complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe, so it is duty of the prosecution to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that complainant-PW-01 belongs to scheduled tribe, but in this regard prosecution did not file any caste certificate of the complainant (PW-01). Thus, learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of offence under Special Act (Atrocities Act). 11. It is quite vivid from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of complainant (PW-01) and other witnesses and thereby rightly convicted the respondent/ accused for offence under Sections 294 & 354 of IPC and acquitted him of offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 12.Thus, finding recorded by learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, as such, the same does not want any interference by this Court. As such, this acquittal appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL