1 2025:CGHC:25926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 99 of 2025 1 - Topendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Krishna Aged About 35 Years R/o 17, Ward No.- 8, Geedam (Np), South-Bastar Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ajaak, Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Awadhesh Awasthi S/o Jagdish Awasthi Aged About 59 Years R/o Awasthi Colony, P.W.D. Para Geedam, P.S. Geedam, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Miss Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 19/06/2025: 1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at South Bastar, Dantewada in Special Case No.01/2016 whereby the KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.06.20 15:13:09 +0530 2 respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 506 (B) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’). 2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant has lodged a written complaint (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, District South Bastar Dantewada stating that on the date of the incident i.e. 21.10.2015, while the appellant was present near the under construction house at Ward No.8, (Geedam), the respondent/accused came and started abusing the appellant in filthy language. He also threatened to kill. After enquriy, offence has been registered vide FIR (Ex.-P/5) under Crime No.01/2015. The appellant/complainant belonged to the ST category i.e. ‘Bhatra’ as is evident vide Ex.-P/7. His caste certificate has been seized vide Ex.-P/3. 3. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, he has pleaded false implication and has not adduced any defence evidence. The trial Court after evaluating 3 the evidence acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow this Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment of acquittal. He submits that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charges and the impugned judgment of acquittal is well merited which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is well established that in order to attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution must prove that the offence has taken place in a public place to the annoyance of others. In the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another Vs. K. Lalitha {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844}, it has been held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 (b) of the IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. The test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC is whether the tendency 4 of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, PW-1 i.e. the victim (appellant) has himself admitted that there was dispute with the respondent/accused regarding land, for which earlier also cases were filed. The trial Court in para-17 of the impugned judgment has analyzed the evidence that PW-1 to PW-8 i.e. the victim and other witnesses have deposed differently about the words uttered by the accused during quarrel. Further, the victim and other witnesses have also admitted the fact that such type of words were uttered during quarrel. The independent witness has also stated that both the victim and the accused were abusing each other. 10. In such circumstances, from the conduct of the accused, it appears that the test of obscenity was not passed to make out an offence under Section 294 of the IPC. 11. Furthermore, mere empty threat is not sufficient to attract the offence of criminal intimidation. The Act would indicate that there must be an act of threatening another person, of causing any injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. The 5 threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or it must be with the intention to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 503 of the IPC. In order to prove the offence under Section 506 of the IPC, the threat should be real and not just a mere word. Empty threats do not mean that the case under Section 506 of the IPC is made out. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that mere words were uttered by the respondent/accused during quarrel. Considering the attending circumstances, it further appears that there was no intention on the part of the respondent/accused in extending threat to the complainant (PW-1). As such, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is also not made out against the respondent/accused. 13. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the charge sheet was filed for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, however, the said section stood substituted by the Act No.1 of 2016 with effect from 26.1.2016 and thus the substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). To attract the offence under the said Section, the prosecution has to prove that whoever, not being a 6 member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. 14. In the present case, it is admitted position that there was land dispute between the parties and there was no intentional insult or intimidation on the part of the respondent/accused to humiliate the complainant only on the ground that the complainant belongs to the SC/ST category. The Act of 1989 was enacted with a laudable object to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Legislature required intention as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Offences under the Act, 1989, are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. 15. 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]. 16. 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 case is made 7 out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 17. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve