1 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 2025:CGHC:25367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1870 of 2017 1 - Gopal Bisi S/o Bandobast Bisi, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bodna, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramaram S/o Kunj Bihari, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khairadih, Police Station Shakargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh .. Appellants(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Shakargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order 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 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.20 10:43:58 +0530 2 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 dated 28/10/2017 passed in Special St. (Atrocities) No. 45/2015 by the learned Special Judge(Atrocities), Surguja (Ambikapur) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 294 B of the IPC (two counts) Sentenced to the period already undergone by the appellants during trial and fine of Rs.500/- each (two counts) in default, further undergo R.I. for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03/05/2015 at about 11.00 a.m., the salesmen namely Rajkumar & Shankar Ram opened the Fair Price Shop and distributing the commodities to the beneficiaries. At about 3.00 p.m., the present accused persons came there and started abusing the salesmen as well as the husband of Sarpanch namely Janeshwar(PW-1) and also stated that under whose instructions, they are distributing commodities and thereafter, started assaulting the victim. The appellant No.2 also started to abuse in filthy languages and tried to assault him. It is alleged that when the victim after closing the Fair Price Shop and went to the Police Station to lodge the FIR, the appellant No.1 caught hold the shoulder of Janeshwar Ram and asked him to distribute the commodities, by using abusing in filthy languages. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 06/05/2015 at Police Station Shankargarh against the appellants. After due 3 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 investigation, the appellants were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the conviction was purely based on the evidence of Rajkumar Yadav (PW-8),however, it is submitted that on bare perusal of evidence of PW-8, it is crystal clear that the entire evidence of the said witness does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer. PW-8 stated in para 8 of his cross-examination that it is correct to say that the accused have not abused him and not assualted him. Learned counsel further submits that the written report lodged by PW-2/Jugni Tirkey who is the Sarpanch of the village, but she has not supported the case of the prosecution 4 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 and she stated that she has not lodged any report. Thus, the offence against the appellants have not been proved. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges leveled against them by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 7. 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. 8. PW-1, Janeshwar Ram, stated in his evidence that Rama and Bihari were making noise near the village Society shop at 3 p.m. Thereafter, he came to the Society after hearing the noise and saw that both of them were fighting, then he caught hold of Bihari's hand and made him sit in the tractor and went him away. He further deposed that he do not remember on whose tractor Bihari had gone. Bihari and Rama had a dispute since the time of Sarpanch elections and both were fighting over the same dispute. He further stated that he did not tell anything, what altercation took place between them and thereafter, he ran away village Bachwar. In cross-examination, he stated that it is wrong to say that at that time, Gopal Bisi and Ramaram came to the shop for some work and threatened to kill him and his wife Budhni and also 5 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 denied that the appellants abused Shankarram by abusing him in filthy language. 9. PW-8, Rajkumar Yadav, stated in his evidence that at that time of distribution of rice in the society of village Khairadih, accused/appellants came and entered the society and started abusing him and Janeshwar Tirki, regarding the distribution of rice. The accused persons abusing him in filthy languages. After that they threatened Janeshwar Tirki, husband of Sarpanch. However, in para 8 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he had no animosity with accused persons and the appellants did not assault him and did not abuse him by taking his name. 10. PW-9-Shankar Ram, stated in his evidence that he was distributing ration at the Society of village Khairadih. When he came out of the shop, he saw that there was a fight between Rama and Bihari. Apart from that he did not know anything about the incident. In cross-examination, he stated that it is wrong to say that the appellants have abused him, Janeshwar and Jugni Tirkey in filthy language. 11. Moreover, there are several material contradiction and omission in the court statement of Rajkumar(PW-8) to the statement of Janeshwar Ram(PW-1) and Shankar Ram(PW-9). From the statement of above witnesses, in their cross-examination, it is manifest that the appellants herein did not abuse in filthy language. None of the witnesses have supported the case against the appellants 6 CRA No. 1870 of 2017 12. For the foregoing discussions, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 294 of the IPC against the appellants that the appellants abused the complainant in the filthy language. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant does not deserve to be sustained. 13. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against them. 14. Appellants are on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by them at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 15. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep