1 2025:CGHC:16011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1567 of 2018 1 - Durgesh Sonkar S/o Shri Punnulal Sonkar Aged About 21 Years R/o Nehru Nagar , Police Station Balco Nagar District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravi Ranjan Kumar Thakur @ Bauwa S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Thakur Aged About 19 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Behaind Bajrangbali Temple, Police Station Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Balco District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 04.04.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes {Prevention of Atrocities} Act, 1989), Korba (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 07/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted and 2 sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence In Default under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code Simple Imprisonment of 15 days and fine of Rs. 100/- In default of payment of fine amount further 03 days Simple Imprisonment. under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Simple imprisonment for 06 months and fine amount of Rs.100/- In default of payment of fine amount further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Simple imprisonment for 06 months and fine amount of Rs.100/- In default of payment of fine amount further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. (all sentences shall run concurrently) 2. In this case, complainant is Ganesh Kumar Chouhan (PW-02) was a member of the scheduled castes and the appellants herein are not the member of the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. It is alleged that on 24.02.2017 the complainant went to see the fair where the accused persons have also arrived. The accused persons were heavily intoxicated due to which they were sent out of the fair. After some time when the complainant went to drop his friend near the house of Nehru Nagar Parshad, the accused persons abused him by using 3 filthy language and used their fists to beat him. They alleged that due to him only they were sent out of the same fair. During the fight the complainant received grievous injuries on his head, neck, back and in the thumb of right hand. The incident was witnessed by Arjun Das (PW-01). The matter was reported by the complainant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police and the trial Court framed the charge punishable under Sections 294 and 323/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellants. 3. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein accused/appellants have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter, however one defence witness was examined by the appellants . After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants referring to the statements of the victim (PW-02) and witness of this case Padhmini Rathore (PW-03) argued that from the statements of 4 above witnesses, it is made clear that the alleged incident of abusing the complainant would not fall within the abmit cum ingredients of Section 294, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and is not sustainable. He further argued that the appellants are young working men and the appellants have already undergone 27 days in jail. They are facing lis from last 07 years, therefore, it is prayed that the appellants may be acquitted from all the charges leveled against them by allowing the present criminal appeal in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the complainant and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Undisputedly, complainant Ganesh Chouhan (PW-02) is a member of scheduled castes and the appellants herein is not a member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. According to the Court statement of complainant- Ganesh Chouhan (PW- 5 02), at the time of incident, when he reached near the house of Kriparam Sahu, Prashad to drop Arjun Das(PW-01) on his motorcycle at the same time the accused persons snatched his keys of motorcycle and started abusing him in filthy language by stating that he belong to “Gada” community and even beat him with their fists due to which he received several grievous injuries on various body parts. This whole incident was witnessed by PW-01 and he tried to intervene in the fight between them. He also stated that after the fight he got unconscious and fainted on the spot. His purse got stolen which was having five thousand rupees. The whole incident was reported by him in the Korba Police Station, Chhattisgarh. 8. PW-01 Arjun Das who is stated to be the sole witness of the incident stated that the incident pertains to the year 2017. At about 10-11 PM in the night when the complainant came to drop him on a motorcycle, the accused appellants snatched the keys of the motorcycle and started hitting him with their fists due to which he received injuries and was subsequently sent to hospital for treatment. He tried to intervene between the fight and due to which the accused appellants ran away from the spot. 9. Section 3(2) (V) and 3(2)(Va) states as under:- 6 (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (va) commits any offence, specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;] 10. On minute examination of the statements of above one witness as well as the complainant, it makes clear that the accused appellants used the word “Gada” to abuse the complainant. The word “gada” in Chhattisgarh is not used to refer anyone’s caste. Thus this court is of the considered opinion that the accused appellants does not come under the ambit of Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that appellant never harass the victim regarding his caste. The trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, therefore, conviction of the appellant for the with regard to the 7 offence punishable under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act is set aside. 11. However, with regard to offence under Section 294 and 323/34 of the IPC, considering the statements of complainant PW-02 and the sole witness PW-01, it is crystal clear that the fight took place by and between the parties and the complainant received injuries on various parts of the body, thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. So far the sentence part is concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the appellants are young working men and are facing lis from last 07 years, they have undergone 27 days in this case and further considering the fact that the doctor PW-03 has stated that the injuries received by the complainant are simple in nature and he was admitted for only one day at the hospital after which he was given the reference of a private hospital, I am of the view that the end of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Fine amount has already been paid by them. 8 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 294 and 323/34 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 14. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 15. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza