1 2025:CGHC:1409-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1070 of 2024 Dinesh Joshi S/o Late Dev Singh Joshi, Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Motesara, Chowki-Damapur, Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Victim) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ahiman Nishad S/o Labho Nishad, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jogipur, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For State/Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 09.01.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant- Dinesh Joshi under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.10 10:47:00 +0530 2 Atrocities Act, 1989’), read with Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kabirdham (CG) in Atrocity Special Case No.173/2023, whereby, respondent No.1-Ahiman Nishad has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that a merg intimation was lodged by the deceased’s husband- Dinesh Joshi on 13.06.2021 vide Ex.P/12, when he received the information from this brother- Motilal that his wife is lying dead with full of blood in his field and he immediately reached the spot and lodged the alleged intimation to the Police Out Post Damapur, Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham, where he has raised a suspicion that someone else has killed his wife and based upon the said information, the FIR was thereafter, lodged vide Ex.P/22 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P/11 and was sent for its autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Keshav Kumar Jaiswal (PW-9), who vide his report (Ex.P/18) opined the mode of death is head injury due to hard & blunt object and due to the compound fracture in skull bone and depressed fracture, and accordingly, the death was opined to be homicidal in nature. 3. During the course of investigation, the respondent/accused was arrested on 29.03.2022 and based upon his disclosure statement 3 (Ex.P/2), one Kudali (crowbar) was recovered from him vide Ex.P/3, which was found to be stained like a human blood and was sent for its chemical examination. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that by completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham against the respondent- Ahiman Nishad with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and thereafter, a subsequent charge-sheet was also submitted against him under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Kabirdham, where, charges have been framed under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, 1989, which was denied by the said respondent and claimed to be tried. 4. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and has produced 44 documents, while none was examined by the respondent/accused in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the said respondent/accused is not the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence an mentioned herein-above and being aggrieved, the complainant, who is the husband of the deceased, has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the respondent/accused is not the author 4 of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/State has supported the contention of the counsel for the appellant. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the merg intimation, lodged on 13.06.2021, an FIR was registered vide Ex.P/22 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, it was revealed regarding certain loan transaction, which was made between the deceased’s brother-in-law, namely, Kamlesh with the respondent- Ahiman Nishad and it reveals further that since the respondent has advanced the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of interest of Rs.10% per annum, which was found to be excessive according to the deceased’s husband, therefore, an altercation took place between him and the deceased and owing to which, the respondent/accused caught hold of his (Dinesh Joshi) collar and assaulted him. It appears further that after receiving the alleged assault, he disclosed the said fact to his wife (deceased) Urvashi, who got annoyed and later on, slapped the respondent/accused 6 to 7 times and because of that, it was alleged by the prosecution that she was threatened by the respondent/accused to kill her. Although, the alleged allegation was made, but from perusal of the entire evidence, we, however, do not find that when the alleged 5 assault was taken place. That apart, the alleged weapon (Kudali) was recovered in presence of the witnesses, namely, Ramphal (PW-1) and Anjori Ram Dhurve (PW-2) and was sent for its chemical examination, but, no blood was, however, found in FSL report (Ex.P/32). Even the said witnesses in whose presence the alleged weapon, alleged to have been recovered, have not supported the same. What is revealed further that the alleged incident had occurred on 13.06.2022, but, the respondent/accused was arrested 09 months thereafter, i.e. on 29.03.2022. It, thus, appears that the prosecution has virtually failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondent/accused was involved in any manner for the commission of the alleged offence and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent/accused- Ahiman Nishad from the commission of the alleged crime. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita