1 2025:CGHC:40232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 117 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhagirathi Sinha S/o Late Khanjar Sinha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chhuiha, Police Station Finegshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Tikendra Kumar Sinha S/o Late Khanjar Sinha Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Chhuiha, Police Station Finegshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents :Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.08.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.11.2022, passed by the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.11 18:11:19 +0530 2 Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (CG) in Special Case No.33/2020, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 2. According to the prosecution, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the Complainant- Ghanaram on 06.07.2020, alleging inter alia, that on the previous day, i.e. 05.07.2020 around 11-11.30 am, he was going to village- Nawadih by his motorcycle and when he reached near the Mina Hardware Shop, he was stopped by the respondents, who abused him in filthy language in public place in the name of his caste and assaulted with hands and fists and threatened to kill upon knowing the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. It is alleged further that when the incident had taken place, it was seen by Narayan Dhruw, Ramnarayan Sinha and one Shiv Kumar, who intercepted the alleged incident. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the Complainant- Ghanaram was examined as PW-1 and it appears from his testimony that he lodged the alleged report against the respondents because he was stopped by them from selling the liquor and, owing to which, some altercation took place between them. It reveals further from his testimony that the alleged report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by him at the instance of the Sarpanch, whose terms were not cordial with the respondents. 4. Besides, although, it was stated by him that Narayan Dhruw, Ramnarayan Sinha and one Shiv Kumar, have seen the occurrence of the alleged incident, but Ramnarayan Sinha (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar (PW-3), have, however, not supported the alleged version of him, as they have not 3 seen the alleged incident, as was narrated by the Complainant in his alleged report (Ex.P-1). 5. In view of such circumstances, the trial Court after taking note of those materials, has not erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita