1 2025:CGHC:43006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 148 of 2019 State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus Jageshwar Yadav S/o Anto Yadav, aged about 50 years, R/o Dhodhi Aara, Police Station Tapkara, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 25.08.2025 1. The appellant/State has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jashpur (for short the "SC/ST Act") in Special Case No.17/2016, whereby, the Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.08.26 16:18:40 +0530 2 respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1- 10) of the SC/ST Act. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 days and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, however, period of detention undergone by the accused i.e. from 07.09.2016 to 16.09.2016 has been ordered to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, on 24.06.2016 at about 5:30 am at Village Dhodiara when the complainant Megnath (PW-1) was going to his field for collecting grass, the respondent/accused whose field is adjacent to the field of complainant met him on the way and started raising dispute over the ridge between their fields and told the complainant that he did not make proper ridge between the fields, due to which, water was coming inside his field and also abused him in filthy language in the name of his mother. It is alleged that he has assaulted the complainant by using yoke (joint) of the plough on his head and leg, due to which, the complainant sustained injuries and also extended threat to kill him. 4. After the aforesaid incident, the complainant lodged an FIR (Ex.P- 1) against the respondent/accused at Police Station Tapkara, 3 Jashpur on the same day. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Caste certificate (Ex.P-4) of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P-3. The complainant was examined by Dr. S. P. Paikara (PW-2) who vide his medical report vide Ex.P-5 found three lacerated injuries on the body of the complainant. Joint (yoke) of the plough was seized vide Ex.P-9. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for offences under Sections 323, 294 & 506- B of the IPC and Section 3 (1-10) of the SC/ST Act. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. Statement of the respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication and examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited 9 documents i.e. Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-9. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 323 of the IPC and acquitted him of the remaining charges as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this acquittal appeal. 4 8. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though material evidence is available on record to establish that respondent/accused has committed the said offences. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. From perusal of the statement of complainant Meghnath (PW-1) and FIR lodged by him (Ex.P-1), it appears that on the date of incident i.e. 24.06.2016, a quarrel took place between the accused and complainant regarding the ridge (Medh) between their fields and during such quarrel, the accused uttered certain words to the complainant. It is well established that merely uttering words in anger and during the quarrel does not automatically attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC if the words are not obscene and do not cause annoyance to others in a public place. Hence, the trial Court has recorded correct finding with regard to the said offence. 11. It is also well established that empty threat and mere threat without intention to cause alarm does not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. Even complainant (PW- 1) has not stated anything with regard to intimidation in the his evidence. Further, the other witnesses have also not stated on such 5 score and, therefore, the trial Court has correctly recorded the finding in this regard at Para 16 of the impugned judgment. 12. Furthermore, from scanning of evidence on record, there is no specific evidence of caste based atrocity and there was main dispute with regard to flowing of water in agricultural field between two villagers which the trial Court has rightly appreciated in the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondent under Section 3 (1-10) of the SC/ST Act. Moreover, the trial Court has already convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 13. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 14. Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme 6 Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court herein-above, this Court is of the view that the appellant/State has failed to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned findings arrived at by the trial Court and the trial Court has recorded cogent reasons while acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC and Section 3 (1-10) of the SC/ST Act. 16. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay