1 2025:CGHC:11449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1122 of 2024 1 - Gangaram Yadav S/o Late Mansingh Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Harsh Yadav S/o Gangaram Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Likeshwar Yadav S/o Gangaram Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Dinesh Yadav S/o Anjori Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Parasbod, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2024, passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 1/2024 by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, C.G. ,whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 294 r/w 34 of IPC Fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 2 months U/s 323 of IPC Fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 2 months 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant had lodged report at police station Saja that on 05.01.2024 at about 9:00 pm in the night the appellants went in front of complainant’s house in Village Prasbod, P.S.- Saja and started quarrelling that her father took the key of his motorcycle and abused the complainant and her sister in the name of caste in filthy language and also committed marpeet by hand and fist with them. On the said complaint the police has registered an offence against the appellants and produced the final charge sheet before the competent court. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 8 witnesses. Statements of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating 3 evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described in para 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further contended that the appellant no. 2 and 3 are students and order passed by learned trial court can cause grievous damage to their bright future. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4), Dr. Shikha Sahu (PW-06) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bemetara, District-Bemetara, C.G. holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 294 and Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. P.W.-01 has admitted in para 22 of her deposition that there is no previous enmity by and between the parties. She again admitted in 4 para 23 that all 4 witnesses are family members and she herself asserted that no one lives near her house. In para 26 she admitted that the dispute started because her father had took the keys of motorcycle of accused Gangaram. In para 35 she admitted that at the time of dispute her father was drunk. 9. P.W.-02 has admitted in para 20 that the dispute between her father and accused Gangaram took place because her father took the keys of motorcycle of accused Gangaram. In para 34 she admitted that her farmyard (खलिहान) and accused’s farmyard (खलिहान) is adjacent to each other. She herself deposed that it is at some distance. In para 36 she has admitted that when the dispute was taking place she was in her home. 10. P.W.-03 has admitted in para 14 of her deposition that her husband is a habitual drinker and in para 15 she admitted that at the time of dispute also her husband was drunk. In para 19 she deposed that there is no previous enmity by and between the parties and prior to the alleged incident she used to go to the house of accused for agricultural work. In para 22 she admitted that the dispute suddenly arose between the parties over the keys of motorcycle of accused Gangaram. In para 23 she admitted that accused Gangaram was quarreling with her husband that her husband has kept the keys of his motorcycle. 11. P.W.-04 has admitted in his statement that prior to the incident there was no previous enmity between him and the accused 5 persons. In para 16 he deposed that accused Gangaram was quarreling with him that he has kept his keys of motorcycle upon which he denied that he has not kept his keys of motorcycle. In para 18 he admitted that the dispute was taking place near his house. In para 22 he admitted that at the time of dispute he was drunk. In para 24 he admitted that his wife used to work on accused Gangaram’s agricultural land. 12. P.W.-06/ Dr. Shikha Sahu has deposed in para 4 that when she examined the injured/ Anchal Jangde she did not found any external injury on her body. Injured complaint of pain in her right hand because her right hand was twisted upon which the doctor advised her for x-ray. In para 6 she deposed that the injured/victim has refused to do x-ray. The medical report of injured Anchal Jangde is Ex. P/8 In para 9 she deposed that she did not found any external injury on injured/ Ruby Jangde. In para 11 she deposed that the hand movement of injured was correct. The medical report of injured Ruby Jangde is Ex. P/9. 13. From perusal of the statement of the witnesses it is crystal clear that there was no previous enmity by and between the parties. In this case Kalyan Jangde was the aggressor party and was drunk at the time of dispute. Also, the witnesses are the family members. 14. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the fact that at the time of dispute Kalyan Jangde was drunk and the dispute arose between the parties only upon keeping keys of motorcycle of accused Gangaram, there is no previous enmity by and 6 between the parties, also the medical reports Ex. P/8 and P/9 of the two injured persons, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under Sections 294 and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC would not be made out against the appellants. 15.The appeal is allowed accordingly. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2024 is hereby set aside. Appellants stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima