1 2025:CGHC:51452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1579 of 2022 Yogiraj Chandrakar S/o Baburao Chandrakar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chikhali, Ward No. 03, Malkharouda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. AJK, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 15/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.8.2022 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir Disst. Janjgir- Champa (CG) in Special Session Case No.05/2021, whereby the learned Special Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 323 IPC Till rising of Court Rs.1000/- SI for 10 days 02. 3(2)(v-a) Atrocities Act ……….. …….. ……... BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.10.17 17:48:18 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that victim Saroj Kurre was working in Choice Centre, and on 06.12.2019, she had gone to attend training of voter list at the Office of Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda. After attending the training, she went near the shop of the appellant to call her friends. On seeing her, the appellant abused and slapped her and tried to outrage her modesty. The victim’s friends namely Tilbai and Vidhya Bharati, who were present at the time of the incident, intervened. Written report was lodged by the victim vide Ex- P/2, based on which, FIR (Ex-P/3) under Section 323 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act 1989’) was registered against the appellant. Spot maps (Ex-P/4 & P/5) were prepared. Caste Certificate of the victim (Ex-P/1) was seized vide Ex-P/6. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa. Statement of the victim and other witnesses were recorded. Thereafter the accused/appellant was arrested. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC, 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989. 3. Learned Special Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC, 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989, who denied the charges and claimed for trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and exhibited 09 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No witnesses have been examined by the appellant/accused. The learned Special Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 06.8.2022, found the evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and 3 sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim had good relation with the appellant as she herself has admitted in her deposition that she called him elder brother and both of them used to visit each other’s houses. Thus, there was a cordial relation between them. He further submits that the victim used to roam with a person namely Hemant Karsh, which was objected by the appellant, therefore, she has falsely implicated the appellant in the instant case. He further submits that there is no medical evidence to prove the fact that the appellant assaulted the victim, despite that the learned trial Court has held him guilty of said offence. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the appellant/accused may be acquitted of all the charges. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment. 7. On being enquired, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount and also completed the sentence of ‘till rising of the court’ as has been awarded by the Special Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and also went through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 9. Saroj Kurre (PW-2) has specifically stated in her deposition that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. On the date of incident, when she went to call her friends near appellant’s computer shop, at that time, the appellant abused her and slapped her on her cheek. Vidya Bharati (PW-4) & Tilbai Ajgalle (PW-5) are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have also supported the aforesaid statement of the victim. These witnesses have also deposed that they 4 intervened and tried to pacify the dispute between the appellant and the victim. All the three aforesaid witnesses have denied the suggestion that the appellant did not assault the victim. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their deposition. 10. Though no medical evidence was collected by the prosecution, the victim and other witnesses have not stated that any injury was caused to the victim. Hence, non-collecting medical evidence did not go against the truthful deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, hence it is found that the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offene under Section 323 IPC. 11. The victim belongs to Scheduled Caste category, which has also been proved from her Caste Certificate (Ex-P/1), which has been proved by SDM SK Gupta, (PW-1) who was the issuing authority of aforesaid document. Thus, holding the appellant guilty by the Special Court for the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989 is also found to be based on evidence available on record. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, 1989, hence, the same is affirmed. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini