1 2026:CGHC:6074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 191 of 2025 Smt. Phuleshwari Bai Dheemar W/o Dhanesh Dheemar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Lukupali, Komakhan, District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 03.02.2026 1. Though the present appeal is listed today for necessary orders, it is relevant to note that the appellant was granted suspension of sentence by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025. However, she could not be released in pursuance of the said order as she was unable to arrange the requisite sureties. Consequently, an application was moved on her behalf seeking release on personal bond, which came up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench on 26.03.2025 and the same was allowed. The appellant was directed to appear before the Registry of this RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court on 01.05.2025; however, by that time she had not been released from jail and, therefore, could not appear as directed. It is further stated that as per the report submitted by the OfÏce of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), dated 02.02.2026, the appellant was ultimately released from jail on 09.06.2025. Thereafter, she was again directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.09.2025, but she could not appear on the said date as well. Considering the fact that the appeal is being pursued on behalf of the appellant through legal aid and keeping in view the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court, with the consent of the parties, I proceed to hear the matter finally. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SCST), Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case No. H-21/2021, whereby the the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Simple Imprisonment for 02 months. Under Section 3(1) (za)(A) of SC/ST (Prevision of Atrocities Act) Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 02 months. (Both the sentences will run concurrently) 3 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Baisakhin Bai Tondon, lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Komakhan alleging that she is a resident of Ward No. 9, Komakhan and earns her livelihood by selling vegetables. It is alleged that on 05.04.2021 at about 11:00 a.m., after opening her vegetable shop, she went to the public water tap of Komakhan Panchayat for fetching water, where the present appellant was already present. It is further alleged that the appellant abused the complainant by using filthy language, called her a prostitute and raised a quarrel, thereby preventing her from taking water from the public tap. When the complainant objected to such conduct, it is alleged that the appellant assaulted her with a stick, whereupon local persons intervened and separated them. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Komakhan registered FIR No. 53/2021 (Ex. P/2) for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the police prepared the spot map (Ex. P/3), seized the caste certificate of the complainant (Article A/1), marked as Ex. P/5, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(m) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4 5. Thereafter, charges were framed and read over to the appellant, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses, whereas the defence did not examine any witness. In her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. 6. The learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Mahasamund, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 06.12.2024, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not pressing the appeal insofar as it relates to the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment and confines her challenge only to the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the incident occurred on 05.04.2021 without any pre-meditation and on the spur of the moment. It is further contended that this was the first offence of the appellant, she has no criminal antecedents, and after the incident she has not indulged herself in any other criminal activity. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has awarded a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. It is pointed out that the appellant remained in judicial custody from 03.08.2021 to 04.08.2021 during trial and, after conviction, again remained in custody from 06.12.2024 to 09.06.2025. Thus, the appellant has already undergone a total period of imprisonment of six months and 5 seven days. It is also submitted that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the minimum sentence prescribed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is six months. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be sufÏcient to meet the ends of justice and the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no interference is warranted. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. Though the conviction has not been challenged, this Court has nonetheless carefully examined the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. Upon such examination, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly held the appellant guilty for offences punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(za)(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court calls for no interference. 12. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for a total period of six months and seven days, which satisfies the minimum sentence of six 6 months prescribed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and further considering that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be sufÏcient to meet the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(za)(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby maintained. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by her. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Her bail bonds shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan