1 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 2025:CGHC:25360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1360 of 2017 1 Pannalal Nishad S/o Ghasuram Nishad, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Barkai, Chowki Dudhawa, Thana Narharpur, District U.B.Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narharpur District U.B.Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 18/06/2025 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 26.08.2017 passed in Special Session Case No. 59/16 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Dist Uttar Bastar Kanker C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.19 18:01:08 +0530 2 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 3 (1) (ध) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 01 year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine 10 days more S.I Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21/8/16 at about 7 am at Village Barkai, the appellant who does not belong to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that complainant belong to Schedule Tribe, had abused him in the name of his caste and further had beaten with stick over the body of complainant. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the Fir was registered. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The statement of the witnesses was recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 3 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 8 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 26.08.2017 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that in the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that there are material contradiction and omissions. Learned counsel would submit that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence under the ST/SC Act is made out because the incident took place at an open place and no one is there. He would further submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant is simple in nature which can be seen from the medical evidence. Thus the appeal may be allowed. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the State has supported the decision of the trial Court. He has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be Correct and there is no basis by which any interference is warranted in the appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their 4 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. It is an admitted fact that the quarrel between the appellant and the accused happened in open area and there is no eye witness of the same. 11. The victim- Hemlal Bhaskar has been examined as PW-5. He stated in the cross examination that it is correct to say that no other independent witness was present when the accused abused and beaten him. It is true that no one could defend him when the accused beaten this witness. It is true that he was not admitted in the hospital and did not suffer any bone fracture. 12. PW-1 Pritam has deposed categorically and stated that the accused has not assaulted the victim in front of him and he has not witness the incident. He put his signature on the paper as per the instructions of the police authority. In cross examination he has not stated anything. 13. From the medical evidence adduced by PW-3 Dr. Sunil Kumar, he has stated that he examined the victim and submitted his report Ex- P-5. According to this witness, the complainant had a slight swelling near the wrist on his left hand and a mark of stick hitting near the elbow and a slight abrasion on the back of his head, slight blood clotting, a slight swelling in the heel of the left foot. All the vital parts of the injured were normal. Apart from this, there were 5 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 no injuries anywhere else in the body and the injuries were simple in nature. He further stated that it is not true that the injuries as mentioned above will surely occur if one falls on the left side in the bushes. He further stated that he has examined the stick also and it is a normal stick which can be found in any household. 14. On bare perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness and the victim, it is evident that the victim has been abused in the name of his caste in an open place and there is no eye witness to the said incident. 15. It is noteworthy to mention here that the SC/ST Act, 1989 was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act, 1989 is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The SC/ST Act, 1989 thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. Section 3 (1) (ध) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 would read as under:- "Section 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 6 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 1989- abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe by caste name in any place within the public view" 16. Thus, the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 3 (1) (ध) can be clarified as abuse of any member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe by caste name in any place within the public view. 17. In view of the above, it is observed that an offence under the SC/ST Act, 1989 would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment in any place within the public view. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite vivid that the appellant has not committed any offence in respect of caste of the victim in a public place. Therefore, it is held that no offence under Section 3(1)( ध ) of SC/ST Act, 1989 is made out against the appellant. 18. As far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, the prosecution witnesses, the victim and the Doctor who examined the victim it is evident that the injury sustained by the victim was not on the vital part of the body. There is no cogent and sufficient material against the appellant. The alleged injuries are simple in nature and even the victim has not admitted in the hospital even for a single day. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution has 7 CRA No. 1360 of 2017 failed to prove that the accused intended to cause grievous hurt to the victim. However, it is proved that the appellant caused the assault to the victim. 19. In view of the above, the conviction imposed upon the appellant 323 IPC is hereby maintained. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly looking to the fact that the incident was of the year 2016, at this stage, it is just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant-Pannalal Nishad. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is acquitted from the charges under 3 (1) (ध) Act. However, his conviction under 323 IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence period is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 21. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His 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.. 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. 22. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti