1 2025:CGHC:12712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 37 of 2016 1 - Bramhanand S/o Milan Das Panika Aged About 23 Years R/o Gangdei, P.S. Kotwali Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrakiran S/o Milan Das Panika Aged About 18 Years R/o Gangdei, P.S. Kotwali - Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. A.J.A.K. District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 17/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.09 11:05:59 +0530 2 impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2015, passed by learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Korba, District Korba (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 294 of IPC R.I. for 01 month and fine of Rs. 200/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 10 days. U/s. 506 Part-II of IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months. U/s. 427 of IPC R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 01 month. U/s. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2011, the complainant Budhwar Singh/PW-3 lodged a written complaint to the AJAK Police, Korba with the allegation that 2-4 days back from 29.10.2011, the appellants threatened him on the issue of flow of rain water. On 29.10.2011, when he came out from his house, he saw that the wooden bolt of the door of his shop was broken and the door was opened. Both the appellants were present there, and after seeing 3 him, they started abusing with filthy language and also in the name of his caste. The incident was witnessed by the persons of the vicinity. On the written complaint (exhibit P-2), the unnumbered FIR (exhibit P-3) was registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Korba against the appellants on 14.11.2011 for the offence under Section 294, 506, 427, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). The numbered FIR (exhibit P-6) was also registered. With respect to the social status of the complainant, the social status certificate and domicile certificate (exhibit P-1A and P-1B) have been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-1). Spot map (exhibit P-4) was prepared by the Police. The damages panchnama (exhibit P-5) was also prepared in presence of the witnesses. The appellants have been arrested on 01.12.2011. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 427, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the CRPC have also been recorded, in which 4 they denied the circumstances appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. They have further submitted that they are the caretaker of the land of Madan Lal Modi, but the complainant has constructed a house in his land and on that dispute, they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their evidence suffers from inconsistency and not sufficient to hold guilty of the appellants in the alleged offences. The report has been lodged belatedly and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. From the evidence of the complainant, it reflects that there was a compromise taken place between the parties, yet the report has been lodged against the appellants. There is no eyewitness to the incident that the appellants had caused mischief by causing damage to the roof top and wooden bolt of the door of the shop of the complainant. He would further submit that there was no ingredient that the appellants have intentionally insults or intimidates the complainant to humiliate him in public place. It was a simple dispute with respect to the encroachment and flow of rain 5 water. There is lack of clinching and cogent evidence and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully reliable. The complainant/PW-3 has duly supported the prosecution case that the appellants caused mischief to his house, abused him with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The appellants have also intentionally insulted the complainant in the public place. The incident is supported by the eyewitness Amar Singh/PW-4 and Ramcharan Yadav/PW-6, and thus there is sufficient evidence available in the record to convict the appellants, which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court and the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 9. PW-3, Budhwar Singh is the complainant in the case. He stated in his evidence that he is running a grocery shop adjoining to his house situated in the land acquired by his parents. The house of the appellants is adjoining to his shop. On 29.10.2011, in the night, he heard the noise and when he came out from his house, he saw that the door of the shop was opened, the wooden bolt of the door was 6 broken and the roof top of the shop was also broken. Both the appellants were present there and abusing and exhorting him. They called him as “Adiwasi Log Bahar Niklo, Nahi to Goli Mar Denge”. The incident was witnessed by Amar Singh, Heeralal, Sukh Singh and Ram Sai. He lodged a report (exhibit P-2) to the police and damages panchnama is exhibit P-5. By the abuse, the complainant annoyed and feel embarrassing. He also stated that there was a dispute with the appellants with respect to the encroachment of the land, and for that dispute the appellants have committed the offence. In cross-examination, he denied that he encroached the land of Madan Lal Modi. He also denied that at the time of construction of his house, the dispute arose between the parties and asked him to put the flow of the rain water towards other side. The appellants are residing in adjoining land since about 40 years back and in between that period, there was no dispute between them. He admitted that in the damages panchnama, the quantum of damage is assessed as Rs. 2000/-. He further admitted that when he had gone to Kotwali Police Station, there was a compromise between him and the appellants. He asked to plantation of 05 plants and to take care of the said plants and despite the compromise, he lodged the report. 10. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that there was a dispute between the appellants and the complainant with respect to the encroachment of the land and flow of rain water. As per his evidence, when he came out from the house, the appellants were abusing with filthy language and by saying that “Adiwasi Log Bahar Niklo, Nahi to 7 Goli Mar Denge”. From his evidence, it also reflects that due to the dispute, the appellants have committed the offence. From the evidence, it also appears that it was a dispute between the parties with respect to flow of rain water and encroachment and in that dispute, the appellants abused the complainant, which cannot be said to be the intentionally insults or intimidates to humiliate the complainant in the place within the public view. Something more is required to constitute the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 11. PW-4, Amar Singh is the eyewitness to the incident, who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 8:30 PM, the appellants were breaking the wall, roof and door of the complainant and abusing him. The appellants were in drunken state and the quarrel took place on the issue of encroachment. In cross- examination, he stated that when the complainant was constructing his house, the son of Madan Lal Modi had gone there and tried to stop his construction by claiming encroachment by the complainant. He also admitted that the flow of rain water was towards the house of the appellants from the house of the complainant. 12. PW-6, Ramcharan Yadav is another witness, who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 9:00 PM, the appellants abusing the complainant and they pelting stones on the house of the complainant by saying that he has encroached their land. The appellant Chandra Kiran kicked the door of the complainant, by which the wooden bolt of the door was broken and it was opened. The appellants abused the complainant in the name of 8 his caste by saying him “Kanwar”. In cross-examination, he too has stated about the encroachment dispute between the appellants and the complainant. From these two witnesses, who claimed to be the eyewitnesses, it has been established that the appellants abused the complainant, threatened him with dire consequences and causing mischief of his shop amounting to Rs. 2000/-. However, there is no sufficient evidence that the appellants intentionally insult the complainant to humiliate him in the place within the public view. 13. PW-1, Yogendra Kumar is the constable, who seized the social status certificate and domicile certificate of the complainant vide seizure memo (exhibit P-1). The social status certificate was issued by the Sarpanch of the village. 14. PW-2, Mahendra Sharma is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR (exhibit P-3) on the basis of written complaint (exhibit P-2). He prepared the spot map (exhibit P-4) and damages panchnama (exhibit P-5). During the investigation, he recorded the statement of Sukh Singh. In cross-examination, he stated that he has not seized the broken piece of asbestos sheet as well as broken bolt of the door. He further admitted that from the asbestos sheet of the complainant, the flow of water was towards the land of the appellants. 15. PW-5, Savitri is the Sarpanch of the village, who issued the social status certificate (exhibit P-1A) and domicile certificate (exhibit P-1B) to the complainant. In cross-examination, she admitted that she has 9 not maintained any register for issuance of any certificate. The social status certificate and domicile certificate is to be issued only after resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Before issuance of social status certificate to the complainant, she has not inquired about caste of the complainant. She has not received any order from the government with respect to issuance of social status certificate and domicile certificate. She is in knowledge that the social status certificate and domicile certificate is to be issued by the Tahsildar. 16. PW-7, Victor Tirkey is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who investigated the case. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not visited to the place of incident along with the Assistant Sub- Inspector Mahendra Sharma. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded by constable Nanhe Singh on his instructions. 17. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the prosecution could not produce the cogent and clinching evidence as required for conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The evidence available on record are not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is hereby set aside. 18. From the evidence of the complainant Budhwar Singh/PW-3 and eyewitnesses Amar Singh/PW-4 and Ramcharan Yadav/ PW-6, there is sufficient evidence with respect to the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 427 of IPC, for which the learned trial Court has 10 rightly convicted the appellants and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences and thereby, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 427 of IPC are hereby affirmed. 19. So far as the sentence are concerned, the offence is of the year 2011, the appellants are presently aged about 31 and 26 years respectively, there was a dispute between the parties with respect to encroachment of the land and as per the evidence of the complainant Budhwar Singh/PW-3, there was a compromise between the parties at Police Station Kotwali, Korba. The appellants are remained in jail for about 22 days during the trial. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh”, (1977) 3 SCC 287, this Court deem it fit in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants for the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount. 20. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 427 of IPC are modified/altered as below:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 294 of IPC Period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 200/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 10 days. 11 U/s. 506 Part-II of IPC Period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 1000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. U/s. 427 of IPC Period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 3000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 21. The fine amount shall be paid by the appellants within 05 months from today. Out of total fine amount, so deposited by the appellants, an amount of total Rs. 6000/- shall be paid to the complainant Budhwar Singh/PW-3 as compensation as provided under Section 395 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 22. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for the further period of 06 months as provided under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 23. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the present appeal is partly allowed. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved