2025:CGHC:6853 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A.No. 399 of 2005 Shanti Bai, W/o. Dhanu Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, r/o. Village- Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through :P.S. : A.J.K.. Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G. --- Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri Gaurav Prasad, Advocate. For State / Respondent : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Government Advocate. ______________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 07/03/2025 1. The challenge in this appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is to the judgment dated 27/04/2005 passed by the Special Judge constituted under (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’), District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 11/2003 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Sections 294 of IPC Fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine additional S.I. for 07 days Under Sections 3(1)(10) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989) 06 months R.I. and fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine additional R.I. for 07 days. All the sentences are run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that, Complainant - Chamru Sarthi lodged report against the appellant that he abused him filthy language and slurred caste remark against him, thereafter an FIR for an offence punishable under sections 294 of the IPC and 3(1)(10) of Special Act was registered against the appellant at ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.24 11:49:44 +0530 -2- Police Station – Bilaspur and investigation was set on motion. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P/5. Appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/11. 3. Statement of the witnesses were record and after due investigation the charge sheet was filed before J.M.F.C. against the accused person. The same was committed to the Sessions Court, who made over the case to the learned trial court. 4. The appellant was charged for an offense punishable under sections 294 of the I.P.C. and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined 08 witnesses and exhibited as many as 11 documents. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and falsely implication. 6. The learned trial court on analysis of material placed before it, convicted the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court is bad in law without appreciation of evidence on record. No offence under ‘Special Act’ is made out. Even otherwise the witnesses have not spoken the actual obscene sound which said to have spoken by the appellant, therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the case has been proved by virtue of the statement of the complainant (PW-4) and eye-witness (DW/1). Caste certificate of the have been proved. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. First question which comes to determination as to whether the appellant has rightly been convicted under section 3(i) (x) of the ‘Special Act’. In order to prove this learned trial Court relied upon the witnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6. Statement of -3- the complainant/victim (PW-3) indicates that when he was going to the Patwari – Gangaprasad Dheeraj (PW-1) at about 4:00 – 05:00 PM evening and reached to the Patwari Office, appellant was present there and started abusing filthily language (Rogha, Ghasiya). He further stated after hearing the obscene words he has not spoken anything, went back and lodged written report vide Ex.P/2. Similar statement has been given by Bhagwati Prasad Shukla (PW-4) Ramesh (PW-5) and Rohit Lal (PW-6). Patwari has been examined as PW-1 and was declared hostile and categorically stated that no such incident had happened. Though from the statement of PW-3 to PW-6 it appears that the appellant has called the PW-3 with caste but it also appears that there was some property dispute amongst them. The other witnesses (PW-4 to PW-6) are known to the appellant whereas PW/1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The word which was used by the appellant appear to the Caste of the appellant. Simply in the name of the Caste is spoken by the appellant, ex-fac-to was not led to the conclusion that intention was there on the part of the appellant to humiliate him in the name of Caste. Apart from this appellant has examined eyewitness - DW/1- Dev Naryan Yadav who has categorically stated that there was property dispute amongst the appellant and complainant and there was also the dispute between husband and son of the appellant with the complainant. He has also stated that no incident was taken and the appellant only stated that they poor fellows and her land is made in the encroachment and falsely implicated the husband of the appellant. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 in paragraph - 18 which read as under:- “Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The -4- allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” 12. So far as placing reliance upon the defense witness, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 7 SCC 157 in paragraph – 20 which read as under: “It is a settled law that same treatment is required to be given to the defence witness(es) as is to be given to the prosecution witness(es).” 13. Apart from this it is well settled law, until and unless the intention to humilate is brought on record, conviction can be made out. Apart from this it to be seen that the independent witness Patwari in whose Office the incident has occurred has not supported the case of the prosecution. Possibility of false implication of appellant cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise the appellant has not specifically stated obscene words to attract section 294 of IPC. Therefore it appears that some property dispute between the appellant and complainant is given a shape of falsely implicating the appellant under the Provision of Special Act. The statement of complainant does not inspire the confidence of this Court. 14. In light of the above discussion, relying upon the judgment cited is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all charges. 15. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance and information. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish