1 2025:CGHC:53630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 89 of 2024 1 - Timan Singh Raj S/o Late Harman Singh Raj, Aged About 56 Years Occupation Head Master, R/o Village Bamhanidih, P.S. Bamhanidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ajak (Sc. And St. Kalyan Thana) Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gagan Jaipurya S/o Nandkishore Agrawal , Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bamhanidih, P.S. Bamhanidih P.S. Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shivkumar Jaiswal S/o - Soni Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bamhanidih, P.S. Bamhanidih P.S. Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1145 of 2024 1 - Gagan Jaipuriya S/o Nand Kishore Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Bamhanidih, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 2 - Shiv Kumar Jaiswal S/o Soni Lal Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Bamhanidih, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Ajak, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate in Acq.A. No. 89/2024 & Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate in Cr. A. No.1145 of 2024. For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL For Respondent No.2 & 3 Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Jusrtice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 03/11/2025 Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 09.01.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa in Special Criminal Case No. 27/2022- whereby the respondents No. 2 & 3 were acquitted of the charges under Section 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted under Sections 294 and 323 of the IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 2. The brief facts as emerging from the record, are that the complainant/appellant was serving as the President of the Managing Committee of SSJ PG College, Janjgir. On 11.02.2022 at about 2.00 pm, respondents No. 2 & 3 allegedly approached the complainant, abused him in filthy language and further insulted him by using caste- related derogatory words. It is also alleged that they exerted pressure upon him to resign from his position as President, assaulted him with hands and fists and issued threats of dire consequences. 3. The complainant lodged a report at police station AJAK, Janjgir on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 294,323,506 Part-II IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent court. 4. During trial, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused/respondents from charges under Section 506 Part-II IPC and the SC/ST Act but convicted him under Sections 294 and 323 IPC, sentencing each to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulations of 20 days and 5 days RI on each count with both the sentences to run concurrently. Hence, the Acq. A. No. 89/2024 has been preferred by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused persons from the offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereas Cr.A. No. 1145 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2)Cr.P.C, 4 1973 challenging their conviction under Sections 294 and 323 IPC. 5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence, asserting false implication in the case. 6. After hearing the parties, learned trial court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2024 under Sections ----- whereas the co-accused namely, ---- were acquitted of the said offences. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the appellant has preferred Acquittal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant in the Acquittal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, argued that the learned trial court has completely failed to appreciate the unshaken and cogent testimony of the complainant and eyewitnesses, who categorically stated that the accused persons abused the complainant by referring to his caste name and threatened him with dire consequences. 8. It was submitted that the findings of acquittal recorded under Section 506 Part-II IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are perverse and based on a misreading of the evidence. The learned trial court, has overtly relied upon minor discrepancies and 5 has ignored the corroborative aspects of the prosecution version. 9. He contended that the ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were fully satisfied, as the abuses were clearly intended to humiliate the complainant on account of his caste and were made in the presence of others. It was thus prayed that the acquittal be set aside and the accused be convicted and appropriately sentenced for the said offences. 10. Counsel for the appellants in Cr. A. No. 1145/2024 contended that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 294 and 323 IPC, despite the fact that on the same set of evidence, the Court has acquitted them of charges under Section 506 Part-II IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was submitted that such inconsistent findings on identical evidence are impermissible in law. 11. It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant have made material improvements and contradictions in their statements, which render their testimony unreliable. It was contended that no independent witness from the locality was examined though the alleged incident occurred in a public place, which, caste serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 12. It is further contended that the medical report does not indicate any external injury on the person of the complainant, which weakens the case under Section 323 IPC. It was also urged that the entire 6 dispute, if any, was civil and administrative in nature relating tot he management of the college, which the complainant has attempted to give a criminal colour. 13. Lastly, it has been argued that the appellants are first time offenders with no criminal antecedents and that the offences, being minor in nature, merit leniency. It was prayed that the conviction be set aside in toto or alternatively they be extended the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. 14. Learned counsel for the State supported the findings of the learned trial court, submitted that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses clearly establishes the occurrence of the incident. It was argued that although certain technical deficiencies existed in proving the caste related abuses beyond reasonable doubt,l the acts of the accused in using obscene language and voluntarily causing simple hurt were duly proved. 15. It was further contended that the trial court has taken a balanced view in acquitted the accused under the SC/ST Act where the requisite ingredients were not proved and convicting them under Sections 294 and 323 IPC where the evidence was consistent. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court. 16. However, considering that there are no previous antecedents against the accused and the punishment involved is limited to fine, 7 learned counsel for the State did not seriously oppose the prayer for extension of the benefit of probation,if this Court deems fit. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to consider the rival contentions. 18. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the complainant primarily assail the findings of acquittal recorded under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 506 Part-II IPC. However, upon revisiting the evidence of the complainant and witnesses,it is evident that while allegations of caste based abuses were made, the same lack precise corroboration regarding the exact words used, the presence of independent witnesses and the specific element of public view required under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. The testimony of the witnesses also exhibits inconsistencies about the time, place and sequence of events. Consequently, the trial court’s findings that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under the SC/ST Act and Section 506-Part II IPC beyond reasonable doubt appear well reasoned and supported by evidence on record. 19. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused of these charges. The settled legal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence cannot be ignored, and interference in acquittal appeal is permissible only when the view taken by the trial 8 court is perverse or manifestly unreasonable. The impugned judgment does not suffer from such infirmity. 20. Turning now to the conviction under Sections 294 and 323 IPC, the evidence of the complainant, supported by testimony of accompanying witnesses, sufficiently establishes that the accused persons used obscene language and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant. The learned trial court has rightly chosen to rely upon these portions of the prosecution evidence, which are cogent and corroborated. Thus, the conviction recorded under these sections calls for no interference. 21. However, considering that the offences involved are minor, that no specific injury has been found on the body of the complainant and that the accused are first time offenders, with no criminal antecedents, this Court finds substance in the plea for leniency raised by the defence. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which permits release of a convicted persons on admonition or probation when the circumstances so justify. 22. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under Section 294 and 323 IPC, this Court deems it proper to release the appellants on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their executing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. 9 23. The trial court after due appreciation of the evidence has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquitting the respondents/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 506 Part-II IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In light of the foregoing discussion and findings, the Acquittal Appeal No. 89 of 2024 preferred by the complainant assailing the acquittal of the respondents No.2 & 3 stands dismissed. 24. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or mis appreciation of evidence warranting interference by this Court. 25. The Cr.A. No. 1145 of 2024 filed by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging their conviction under Sections 294 and 323 IPC is partly allowed only to the extent indicated below: 26. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 294 and 323 IPC is affirmed. 27. However, considering the fact that the appellants are first time offenders, that no external injury is found on the complainant and that the offences are of minor gravity, they are directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each with one 10 surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.13 11:12:31 +0530