2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. A. No. 758 of 2024 Amar Singh Dhruv S/o Late Jodhiram Dhruv Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Barlua, P.S. Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) Hall Mukam - Zila Sahkari Bank Gohrapadar, P.S. Devbhog, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ---- Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 2 - Deepraj Masih S/o Cristo Masih Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sai Nagar, Gariyaband, P.S. City Kotwali, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Respondents For Applicant : Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Surendra Dewangan, P.L.. For Respondent No.2 : None. _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 21/08/2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act 1989’.) Assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 17/05/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge constituted under S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 51/2023 by which the respondent No.2 has been acquitted for the offence under sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and 3(1)(s)(r), 3(2)(va) of Act 1989. 2. Fact in nutshell is that, on 11/07/2023 complainant – Amar Singh Dhruw lodged a written report at Police Station – Devbhog, District – Gariyaband. Inter-alia statng that he works as a Supervisor, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Raipur, Branch – Gohrapada. He was working in his chamber, on 10/07/2023 at about 04:00PM, the respondent No.2 who was working with him as a Assistant Accountant ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.02 10:39:40 +0530 -2- entered into the chamber and asked about one driver – Kamlesh Sinha and started filthily abusing him and also abused him in the name of caste. It is further stated respondent No.2 having known the Caste of the complainant and abused him in the name of Caste and also threatened for dire consequence. The incident was witnesses by Bank Employee – Lokesh Som, Tulas Kandara, Kusmat Dhruv, Badan Oti, Altmas Khan etc. On the written report, a crime No. 224/2023 was registered in Police Station – Devbhog, District – Gariyaband and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court, the respondent no.2 was charged for an offence as stated above who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish it’s case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and exhibited as many as 21 documents. The statement of the respondent No. 2 under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent No.2 from all the charges which led to filing of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court committed an error of law and fact in acquitting the respondent No.2. He submits that the statement of the complainant and the other eye-witnesses have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and erroneously came to a conclusion of acquittal of the respondent No.2. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and respondent No.2 may be convicted for the aforesaid offences with adequate sentenced may be imposed upon him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the argument advanced by Shri Sharma, Advocate. 7. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite of service. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 9. Case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of the complainant and according to the case of the prosecution the incident was witnesses by some other eye-witnesses also. The learned trial court on meticulous examination of the -3- evidence available on record in paragraph 14-15 gave the following finding - “14.In this case, from the perusal of the judicial statements of the eye-witnesses Badan Oti (PW3), Lokesh Som (PW4), Kushwant Dhurva (PW5), Tulsi Kandara (PW6) and Altamas Khan (PW7) who were present at the time of the alleged incident and were examined in the court, it becomes clear that all the alleged eyewitness prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Rather, from the perusal of the judicial statements of the above eyewitness prosecution witnesses who were said to be present at the scene of the incident, it appears that the applicant himself abused the accused and threatened to kill him, in relation to which a report has been lodged by the accused in this case against the applicant Amar Singh Dhruv in Devbhog police station. 15.From a perusal of the above evidence available on record, it is clear that neither the applicant Amar Singh Dhruv himself (PW2) has fully supported the written complaint Exhibit P-5 lodged by him immediately after the incident nor the eyewitness prosecution witnesses Badan Oti (PW3), Lokesh Som (PW4), Kunshawant Dhurva (PW5), Tulsi Kandra (PW5), Tulash Kandara (PW-6) and Altamas Khan (PW-7) who were said to be present at the place of incident. From the analysis of the entire evidence available on record, the case of the prosecution cannot be considered to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, in the context of the above evidence available on record, the entire case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. 10. Learned trial has not believed the statement of complainant – Amar Singh Dhruw (PW-2) as also gave a finding that it is not either supported the written complaint Ex.P/5 neither it was supported by the eye-witnesses and on the basis of analysis of these witnesses, gave a categorically finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. It is also settled that when two views are possible, one favoring the accused should be adhered and view which has been expressed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record and it is also possible view. 12. Therefore, this Court cannot found any illegality or irregularity in light of the view taken by learned trial court appears to be a possible view and does not to be perverse or contrary to evidence. Therefore, appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- -- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish