1 2025:CGHC:42067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 108 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sandhya Mandavi W/o Rajkumar Mandavi Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Badkhouli, Thana Keshkal, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through A Ja Ka, Thana- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghanshyam Parihar S/o Atalsingh Parihar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ghanora, Tah. Keshkal, Revenue, District- Kondagaon, Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Shri S.K. Puriya, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 20/08/2025 : 1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the CrPC against the judgment dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.08.20 16:03:02 +0530 2 Case No.11/2011 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452, 323 & 354 of the IPC and under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant ‘SM’ (PW-2), the then Sarpanch of Village ‘BK’, Block Keshkal, has lodged a written complaint (Ex.-P/1) on 17th October, 2010 at PS Dhanora, District Bastar wherein she has stated that on 16th October, 2010 at about 5 pm the accused entered her house, beaten her and also abused in filthy language in the name of her caste and threatened her to outrage her modesty. When she raised hue and cry, her husband (PW-3) ‘RK’ came and intervened. It was further stated that the respondent/accused used to keep eye on her and threatened to kill her. The said incident was witnessed by Jankai Bai (not examined) and Bhuwanteen Bai (PW-6). Based on the aforesaid information, ‘0’ FIR was registered at PS Dhanora on 17.10.2010 vide Ex.-P/2 and numbered FIR was registered on 18.10.2010 at PS AJAK, Jagdalpur (not proved). The victim was sent for medical examination vide Ex.-P/3 (Doctor has not been examined). 3. Crime details form and sketch map were prepared vide Ex.-P/4. The Patwari has prepared the Panchnama and spot map vide Ex.-P/5. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized vide Ex.-P/7. Car of the accused was seized vide Ex.-P/8. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of the 3 investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/9). In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the respondent/accused has taken a specific plea that at the time of election of Sarpanch, the complainant party had borrowed some money from him and on the date of the incident, the accused was called for returning the money, and at the outside of the house of the complainant, husband of the victim and other members assaulted him by using slippers. The said quarrel was intervened by the defence witnesses namely, (DW-1) Nitin Agnihotri and Ugendra Patel (DW-2). The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused be convicted for the said charges. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Complainant (PW-2) ‘SM’ has deposed that she has filed written complaint about the incident vide Ex.-P/1 at PS Dhanora. In 4 cross-examination, she admitted that she has not written or prepared the said complaint. She has further deposed that the police persons came to her house and prepared the aforesaid written complaint. From the aforesaid statement, it is explicit that the police after getting notice of the incident, reached her house and as such, the first information which was given to the police has not been filed. Moreover, the scribe of the report (Ex- P/1) was also not examined. 9. Husband of the victim namely, (PW-3) ‘RK’ has deposed that immediately after the incident, they had gone to the Police Station Dhanora and lodged the report. But in cross- examination, he has stated that on the next day they had lodged the report to the Police and explained that due to night time, they did not lodge the report. The husband has admitted the fact that the distance between the Police Station and his village is 8 km and the incident has been reported at about 5 pm in the evening. Although in the written complaint (Ex.-P/1) there was some overwriting about time and night time was mentioned, but as per the FIR, the incident occurred in the evening at about 5 pm whereas the distance of the Police Station from the village is only 8 km. This witness has admitted that he was having motorcycle. Considering the aforesaid fact, the trial Court has rightly recorded that no sufficient explanation has been offered regarding the delay of 22 hours in lodging the FIR. 10. The only independent witness examined by the prosecution i.e. (PW-6) Bhuwanteen Bai has been declared hostile. However, 5 she has deposed that both the complainant and the accused were abusing each other. One of the prosecution witnesses namely, (DW-1) Nitin Agnihotri, who was cited as witness by the prosecution, has not been examined from the prosecution side and has been examined by the defence, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The other witness namely, Ugendra (DW-2), whose grocery shop is situated near the house of the complainant, has stated that when the accused came in front of the house of the complainant, the family members of the complainant came out of the house and assaulted the accused. The village people intervened in the said incident and sent the accused to his home. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, particularly considering the defence taken by the accused, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and this Court is in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court. 12. Moreover, it is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See : Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617] & Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114.] 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and no 6 case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 14. In consequence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The Appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve