1 2026:CGHC:4465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 90 of 2022 Karamchand Painkara S/o Lalji Paikara, Aged About 34 Years, Occupation Constable, R/o Khajuri Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Then R/o Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Complainant/Victim). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJK Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Prosecution) 2 - Piyush Tripathi S/o Arun Kumar Tripathi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sattipara, Kesar Bhawan, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Accused). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate appears on behalf of Smt. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Hrishikesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 27/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 15/09/2021 passed by the Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) [Authorized under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.01.27 18:46:00 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, 1989 in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No.10/2019, whereby, the respondent No.2-Piyush Tripathi has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 279, 294 and 353 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) of the [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)] Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 21/06/2018, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant/appellant- Karamchand Painkara, who was posted as a Constable at Police Station Gandhinagar, that on the date of incident i.e 08/06/2018 in the night around 23.15 hours, when he was going from his home to the place of duty on his motorcycle and as soon as he reached near the Central Jail road turning, he was dashed vehemently by the respondent No.2-Piyush Tripathi, who was driving his car bearing registration number C.G.15-CX-8899 rashly and negligently, owing to which, he fell down and, it was alleged further that the said respondent had opened his window glass of his car and started abusing him while using filthy words in the name of his caste as well as in the name of his mother. According to the alleged report, lodged on 21/06/2018, he has not received any injury and the alleged incident was seen by one Rajesh Sanmani and based upon his alleged allegation, he was charged on 06/04/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 294 and 353 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act and, the charge so framed was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant 3 was examined as PW-1 and according to his testimony, it appears that he was dashed by the respondent No.2 from his front side while driving his alleged car, owing to which, he sustained injury on his right leg and was abused by him with filthy words and, it was deposed further that the information of the alleged incident was given by him to the Constable-Rajesh Sanmani and Kishore Triwari. Although, it was stated in his evidence that he was dashed by the respondent No.2 from his front side while driving his car, but the said fact has, however, not shown to be reflected from his written report (Ex.P-1), lodged on 21/06/2018, nor has sustained any injuries, though alleged in his court’s statement. It is to be seen further, as reflected from his alleged report, that the alleged incident was seen by one Rajesh Sanmani, but in his statement, it was, however, stated that, he informed him about the alleged incident and a Constable Kishore Tiwari on telephone. There is, thus, disparity in his statement with that of his alleged report (Ex.P-1). 4. It is to be noted here further, as revealed from the General Diary (Ex.D-2), that he went for his duty on 08/06/2018 around 11.00 P.M. and was returned on the next day morning at 04.05 A.M., but no information as such was recorded by him that the said respondent while driving his car in a rash and negligent manner has deshed him when he returned on the next day morning around 04.05 A.M. His statement is, therefore, cannot be relied upon and, even Rajesh Sanmani, who was alleged to have been the eyewitnesses, was not examined, so as to place reliance upon the testimony of the complainant, in order to attribute the respondent 4 No.2 for the commission of the alleged crime. 5. 5. That apart, the incident was alleged to have been occurred on 08/06/2018 around 23.15 hours, but a report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by him only on 21/06/2018, that is, much after the passing of the considerable period of 13 days from the occurrence of the alleged incident even without offering any explanation for it. The trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has therefore, not erred in acquitting the respondent No.2-Piyush Tripathi from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde