1 2025:CGHC:54159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 845 of 2022 Dhirendra Kumar Diwan S/o Shri Bacchan Das Diwan, Aged About 30 Years Permanent R/o Village Kolga, P.S. Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ajak, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent {Cause tittle, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Judgment on Board 06/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 14(A)(1) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth, “SC/ST Act”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 44/2018 whereby the appellants has been convicted & sentenced in following manner :- Sr. No. Conviction under Section Jail sentence Fine sentence Default stipulation 1. Section 452 of RI for 01 Year Rs.500/- RI for 15 days 2 IPC 2. Section 323 of IPC Period spent in judicial custody Nil Nil 3. Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Period spent in judicial custody Rs.250/- RI for 7 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that victim & appellant are resident of same village. On account of previous enmity, on 25.06.2018, at about 8.30 pm, appellant/ accused hit the door of house of victim, who belonged to “Scheduled Tribe category” by his legs threatening to kill him and assaulted him with hand & fist. FIR was lodged by brother of victim in Police Station Kartala, District Korba (C.G.). Victim was got examined by Dr. G.S. Gatra (PW-6) and Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh (PW-7). Statement of witnesses were recorded. Photo copy of caste certificate of complainant was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Caste certificate of victim was seized vide seizure Memo (Ex.P-6). The appellant was arrested. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 452, 506 & 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was filed against the appellant before Special Court. 3. Learned Special Court framed charges under Section 452, 506-B & 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(n) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant, which were read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that he is innocent and has falsely been 3 implicated in the case. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. 5. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Judge, vide its impugned judgment dated 05.05.2022, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Against which, instant criminal appeal has been preferred questioning the same. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 7. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that since after conviction of appellant under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, learned Special Court has sentenced the appellant for Till Rising of the Court (TRC), therefore, he also does not want to press instant appeal on aforesaid sentence imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, rather he confined his argument only to the sentence part imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC. He further submits that both the parties are resident of same village and they were previous enmity, as victim had broken visor of motor cycle of appellant /accused - Dhirendra Kumar Diwan, therefore, one month prior to the incident, altercation had taken place between them and as a result of which, instant incident occurred. He further submits that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the appellant and he remained in jail for 10 days after his arrest i.e. during trial. Hence, he prayed that jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that having considered the criminal act of appellant entering house of victim, who belongs to ‘Scheduled Tribe Category’ threatening to kill him and and also assaulted him, therefore, one year sentence imposed upon appellant cannot be termed as disproportionate to the criminal act of appellant. Hence, she prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 10. Though, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that he is not pressing instant appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and also to sentence part imposed against the appellant under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, but Panchram Rathia (PW-3) and his brother (complainant) – Rameshwar Rathia (PW-2) have explicitly stated that appellant assaulted victim by entering his house and caused him simple injuries. Aforesaid fact also get support from medical evidence of Dr. G.S. Gatra (PW-6) and Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh (PW-7), who medically examined the victim, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by Special Court convicting appellant for the offence punishable under Section 452, 323 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, hence, the same is hereby affirmed. 11. So far as sentence part is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press for the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, as he has been sentenced for TRC and fine of Rs. 250/- for the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, therefore, sentence imposed upon the appellant for aforesaid two offences is also hereby affirmed. 5 12. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ with default stipulation for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the record show that both the parties are resident of same village; no criminal antecedents have been reported against the appellant; instant dispute was said to be occurred on account of previous enmity pertaining to trivial issue; the appellant has already remained in jail for 10 days after his arrest i.e. during trial. 13. Having considered aforesaid fact, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him behind the bar for serving out remaining jail sentence and ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 10 days. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant under Section 452 & 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is maintained. Sentence imposed upon appellant under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act alongwith fine amount imposed for the offence under Section 452 IPC is also maintained. However, having considered the fact that both the parties are resident of same village; instant incident occurred on account previous enmity between both the parties and the appellant has already remained in jail for a period of 10 days during trial, therefore, ends of justice would be served if jail sentence of one year imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 10 days. 15. Since appellant has already remained in jail for 10 days, therefore, he need not be surrendered in compliance of this judgment. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 6 16. Record of the Special Judge alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 11:02:27 +0530