1 / 11 2025:CGHC:55625 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 04.08.2025 14.11.2025 -- 14.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1042 of 2008 Judgment Reserved on : 04.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 14.11.2025 1. Dani Ram, S/o Itwari Ram Dhimar, aged about 43 years, Occupation – Panthela. 2. Lakhan Lal, S/o Anand Ram Sen, aged about 45 years, Occupation – Selun. 3. Mahesh @ Mahendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Khunit Ram Sahu, aged about 32 years, Occupation – Agriculturist. All R/o village – Joratarai, P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 2 / 11  State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Kaushaki Kumari, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (C.A.V. Judgment) 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under SC/ST Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No.24/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 IPC. To pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for 01 month. Under Section 323/34 of IPC To pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for 02 months. 3 / 11 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.09.2007 at around 03.20 PM, complainant Lakhan Lal Kurre (PW-03) made a written report (Ex.P-3) in Police Station – Bhakhara to the effect that on call he had gone to attend a meeting in village Joratarai on 17.09.2006 at 01.00 PM. In the meeting, the accused/appellants surrounded him and assaulted hurling abuses in the name of mother and sister uttering caste remark, as a result of which he became unconscious. Had the incident not been intervened by Ramswarup Sahu, the accused/appellant would have killed him. On the basis of this written report, an FIR (Ex.P-4) under Crime No. 159/2006 for the offence under Sections 254, 506, 323m 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against the accused/appellants. The complainant was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Center, Gujra, where he was examined by Dr. Vandana Vyas (PW- 1) and gave her report under Ex.P/1 that the complainant was complaining pain on back and shoulder region, one tooth was broken from uppper jaw but not came with that tooth, no any redness, injury, abrasion or swelling was present at any side of body. One tooth was absent in upper jaw. No any swelling or redness present at this side. The doctor opined that no any injury or abrasion was present at 4 / 11 any side of body. During investigation, spot map was prepared under Ex.P/5. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized under Ex.P/2, according to which the complainant belongs to member of Scheduled Caste. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506(B), 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) was filed before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 294, 506(B), 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, to which they abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Four defence witnesses were also examined by the appellants in their defence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5 / 11 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the facts and not sustainable in law so far it relates to conviction of the appellants under Section 294 and 323/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the statement of the complainant which itself is doubtful. The prosecution has failed to bring the piece of evidence much less the medical evidence with regard to offence under Section 294, 323/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the incident took place in public place and all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal and Anr. Vs. K. Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the prayer of the appellants and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and no interference is called for by this Court. 6 / 11 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court. 8. It is apparent from the record of the trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/24 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants from the charge under Section 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act, convicted them under Sections 294 and 323/34 IPC. 9. Complainant Lakhan (PW-3) has stated that he was called in the village meeting at around 10.00 AM and he attended the same. In the meeting, it was asked from me that what he knows about Baiga then he replied that he did not know about Baiga. Thereafter, the accused/appellants committed maarpeet with him hurling abuses and uttered caste remark “lkys pekj rq>s tku ls ekj nsaxs”. The incident was intervened by Ramswaroop, Janpad President. He has also stated that after the incident, he lodged a written report in police station under Ex.P-3 and the police registered an FIR (Ex.P-4) against the accused/appellants. This witness has admitted his signature on Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 on ‘A to A’ part. 10. Mohanlal (PW-5) has supported the evidence of complainant (PW-3) and has stated that the 7 / 11 accused/appellants abused the complainant (PW-3) in the name of mother and sister. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal (supra) held in para 8 and 9 as under :- “8. It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 9. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellant accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is made out.” 12. In the light of aforesaid decision in N.S. Madhanagopal (supra), it is clear that the complainant (PW-3), in his written 8 / 11 complaint (Ex.P-3), alleged that when he went to attend the meeting, Mahesh, Lakhan, Dani Singh, Prakash and Nagarchi of the village surrounded him and all of them assaulted him. Further, people of other castes of village utter caste remark “pekj lkys” and hurled abusive language in the name of mother and sister, and in the Court statement, the complainant (PW-3) has stated that the accused persons abused him “lkys pekj rqEgs tku ls ekjdj Qsd nsaxs”, but the eye witness Mohanlal (PW-5), son of complainant, has stated that the accused persons hurled many abuses to the complainant (PW-3) in the name of mother and sister. 13. From the aforesaid testimony of these witnesses, it is clear that there is no evidence on record that act of the accused/appellants was to the annoyance of others, and the complainant himself did not stated about obscene words and in his written complaint (Ex.P-3) he only alleged that villagers present in the meeting abused him by ‘lkys pekj’ which does not fall within the ambit of obscene words/act, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these facts in its true perspective and convicted the accused/appellants under Section 294 of IPC. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court holding the accused/appellants guilty for 9 / 11 the offence under Section 294 of IPC is not sustainable in law. 14. As regards conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 323 of IPC, the learned Trial Court relied upon the testimony of complainant Lakhan (PW-3) who has stated that all the accused persons after surrounding assaulted him by fists, due to which he sustained injuries over west, thigh and back side but Dr. Vandana Vyas (PW-1) who medically examined the complainant and gave her report under Ex.P- 1, states that one tooth of upper jaw of the complainant was broken but he did not bring that tooth. The complainant was complaining pain on both his hands and back. There was no swelling, bruise or injury marks anywhere on his body. There was no swelling or redness even on the broken tooth. The doctor has opined that there was no injury or wound on his body. 15. Gandhi Joge (PW-7), Investigating Officer, has admitted the suggestion of defence that villagers had filed complaint against complainant Lakhan Ram (PW-3) vide Ex.D-2. This witness, in para 9 of his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not do any investigation on the complaint of villagers made under Ex.D-2. 16. From the aforesaid testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that that there are many contradictions, 10 / 11 omissions and exaggeration in the statement of complainant Lakhan (PW-3), and the defence of accused/appellants is duly supported by the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW-7) that all the villagers made complaint against the complainant (PW-3) but the Investigating Officer did not do any investigation on the complaint of defence (Ex.D-2) but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the statement of complainant and defence witnesses properly and recorded perverse finding. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellants. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of fine amount dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge (under S.C./S.T.) Act, in Special Sessions Case No. 24/2007 are set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The fine amount deposited by the accused/appellants be refunded to them, after due verification. 18. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six 11 / 11 months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (new Section 481 of BNSS). 19. 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. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.11.14 14:51:34 +0530