1 2026:CGHC:7013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1579 of 2016 1 - Porendra Diwedi S/o Late Shri Shiv Dulare Diwedi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Sector 05/922, Telgu Basti, Balko Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Pushplata Diwedi W/o Porendra Diwedi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Sector 05/922, Telgu Basti, Balko Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Ko- rba, Chhattisgarh ... appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Civil Line A J A K, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For appellants : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. For Complainant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard 9nally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016, passed in Session Trial No. 30/2009, by which the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Korba, District Korba, (CG), whereby the appel- lants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sec- tions Sentenced to 452 of the IPC to both the R.I. for 2 years with 9ne of Rs. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.18 17:10:55 +0530 2 appellants 2000/- and, in default of pay- ment 9ne, additional R.I. for 6 months to each of the appel- lants. 323/34 of the IPC to both the appellants R.I. for 2 years with 9ne of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of pay- ment 9ne, additional R.I. for 2 months to each of the appel- lants. 506 Part-2 of the IPC to both the appellants R.I. for 2 years with 9ne of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of pay- ment 9ne, additional R.I. for 2 months to each of the appel- lants. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Omprakash Kurre, is employed as a Constable and resides with his wife at Quarter No. 240/A, Sector-5, Balco Nagar. The complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Owing to a love relationship between the complainant Omprakash Kurre and Snehalata Sharma, both solem- nized an inter-caste love marriage at Giroudhpuri Dham. On 28.02.2009, the complainant returned home with his wife Snehalata af- ter taking her to a doctor for a medical check-up. At about 4:00 p.m. on the same day, Snehalata’s sister Pushpalata Dwivedi and her husband Porendra Dwivedi knocked at the door of the complainant’s house. When Snehalata opened the door and the complainant also came near the entrance, the accused Porendra Dwivedi and Pushpalata Dwivedi forcibly entered the house. Thereafter, the accused persons abused the complainant’s wife Snehalata Kurre by uttering caste-based and ob- scene insults, stating words to the eBect that she had married a “Chamar” and had become a “Chamarin,” and also hurled similar caste-based abuses at the complainant Omprakash Kurre. The ac- cused further assaulted the complainant and his wife with 9sts and blows, abused them in 9lthy language and threatened them with dire 3 consequences. Hearing the commotion, neighbours gathered at the spot. When the complainant stated that he would lodge a report at the police station regarding the incident, the accused persons again in- sulted and humiliated him by using caste-based abuses inside and out- side the house and thereafter Fed from the spot. On 01.03.2009 at about 1:40 p.m., the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Balco Nagar, whereupon First Information Report No. 84/2009 was reg- istered for oBences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the medical examination of the complainant was conducted; statements of the complainant Omprakash Kurre, Sneha- lata Kurre, Sushila Bai and Somchand were recorded; the spot map was prepared; and the caste certi9cate of the complainant was ob- tained. The accused persons were arrested and arrest memos were prepared; however, pursuant to an order granting anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court, they were released on bail. Upon completion of the investigation and on 9nding suJcient evidence in support of the of- fences mentioned in Column No. 1, a charge-sheet was 9led before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. As the jurisdiction to try the case vested with the Special Court, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba committed the case to the Court of the Special Sessions Judge, Korba. Thereafter, the case was received by this Court for trial, and the accused persons were tried accordingly. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence avail- able on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellants under Section 452, 323/34 and 506 Part-2 of IPC and sen- 4 tenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has committed grave illegality in recording the 9nding of guilt without properly appreciating the legal requirements and the evidentiary short- comings of the prosecution case. It is argued that the conviction under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven- tion of Atrocities) Act is unsustainable, as the prosecution has failed to prove the mandatory ingredient of “intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste in any place within public view.” The alleged incident is stated to have occurred inside the residential house of the complainant, and no independent witness from the neighbourhood has supported the prosecution version regarding the use of caste-based abuses in public view, despite the admitted pres- ence of neighbours. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the testi- mony of the complainant and his wife, being closely interested wit- nesses, required strict scrutiny and independent corroboration, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Material contradictions and omissions in their statements, particularly with regard to the manner of occurrence, the exact words allegedly used, and the sequence of events, go to the root of the prosecution case and render it unreliable. The delay in lodging the First Information Report, though sought to be explained, has not been satisfactorily accounted for and creates serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations. It is also contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of a violent as- sault, as the injuries, if any, are simple in nature and do not correspond with the alleged use of force by multiple accused persons. The learned Trial Court, it is submitted, has failed to consider these in9rmities and 5 has mechanically relied upon the interested testimony of the prosecu- tion witnesses, ignoring the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the 9ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the appellants are entitled to the bene9t of doubt. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that the prose- cution has been able to prove the oBences beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the appellants is well merited and needs no inter- ference. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 9. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 28.02.2009 at about 4:00 p.m. at Quarter No. 240/ए, Sector-5, Balco Nagar, which was in the oc- cupation of the complainant Omprakash Kurre. On the said date, after returning home with his wife Snehalata Kurre from a medical check-up, the complainant was present inside his house when the accused per- sons, namely Pushpalata Dwivedi and her husband Porendra Dwivedi, arrived and knocked at the door. Upon the door being opened, the ac- cused persons allegedly entered the house and a verbal altercation en- sued. According to the prosecution, the accused persons thereafter as- saulted the complainant with 9sts and blows, abused him in 9lthy lan- guage, and threatened him with dire consequences before leaving the spot. The occurrence, as alleged, took place within the residential premises of the complainant during the aforesaid time. 10.PW-3 Dr. M. Singh who medically examined Omprakash Kurre on 01.03.2009 and found three simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt 6 object, which were about 12 hours old. In cross-examination, he admit- ted that such injuries could also be caused by a fall, but did not deny their existence. 11.PW-5 Sushila Porte who is Neighbour of the complainant stated that she knew the complainant and the accused but expressed ignorance about the incident. She did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, though she admitted hearing loud noise from the com- plainant’s house at the relevant time. 12.PW-6 Somchand who is Neighbour of the complainant stated that he heard noise from Omprakash’s house and saw some persons leaving around 4:00 p.m., but did not witness any assault or abuse. He was de- clared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 13.PW-7 Omprakash Kurre who is Complainant stated that on 28.02.2009 at about 4:00 p.m., the accused forcibly entered his house, abused him, assaulted him with 9sts causing injuries to his hand, and threatened to kill him. He proved lodging of the FIR and his medical examination. His testimony remained intact in cross-examination regarding assault and threat. 14.PW-8 Snehalata Kurre stated that the accused persons came to her house on the date of incident and there was a heated argument, but she did not support the allegation of assault or caste-based abuse. She ad- mitted relationship with the accused and was treated as hostile 15.Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justi9ed in convicting the appellants for oBence under Section 452 of the IPC.? 16. 452 of Indian Penal Code provides as under:- “452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, as- sault or wrongful restraint.— Whoever commits house- trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully re- 7 straining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be pun- ished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to 9ne.” 17.A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that, in order to bring home an oBence under Section 452 IPC, the prosecution is re- quired to prove not only the commission of house-trespass but also that the accused had made prior preparation for causing hurt, assault, wrongful restraint, or for putting the victim in fear thereof. Such prepara- tion must precede or accompany the act of house-trespass and cannot be inferred merely from a sudden quarrel or a spontaneous act after en- try into the house. 18.In the present case, it is crystal clear that no weapon, lathi, or any other object indicating prior preparation was seized from the appellants. Even according to the prosecution version, the alleged assault was commit- ted only by hands and 9sts inside the house of the complainant (PW-7). There is no material on record to show that the appellants had made any prior preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint be- fore entering the house. Further, the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the appellants committed house- trespass as de9ned under law. Mere presence inside the house or a sudden altercation, without proof of unlawful entry with the requisite preparation, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 452 IPC 19.. In the absence of seizure of any weapon or incriminating article and in view of the prosecution case itself that the alleged marpeet was by bare hands, the act attributed to the appellants does not fall within the ambit of Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of clear and 8 cogent evidence establishing such prior preparation, the conviction un- der Section 452 IPC cannot be sustained. 20.Section 451 of Indian Penal Code provides as under:- “451. House-trespass in order to commit o5ence punishable with imprisonment.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any oBence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with im- prisonment of either description for a term which may ex- tend to two years, and shall also be liable to 9ne.” 21.However, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the act attributed to the appellants, at the highest, would fall within the ambit of Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 452 IPC. The evidence on record merely suggests that the appellants allegedly entered the house of the complainant and a scuNe ensued, during which the complainant is stated to have sus- tained simple injuries caused by hands and 9sts. There is no evidence of any prior preparation, nor is there any recovery of weapon or object to indicate an intention formed beforehand to cause hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, which is an essential ingredient of Section 452 IPC. In such circumstances, the alleged entry into the house, if proved, can only be construed as house-trespass in order to commit an oBence pun- ishable with imprisonment, thereby attracting Section 451 IPC. Conse- quently, the conviction of the appellants under Section 452 IPC is legally unsustainable and, at best, the act attributed to the appellants would attract the provisions of Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be converted to one under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code, as the essential ingredients of Section 452 IPC are not made out on the evidence on record. 9 22.So far as the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 and 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court 9nds no in9r- mity in the 9ndings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The evidence of the complainant (PW-7), duly supported by the medical evidence of PW-3 to the extent of simple injuries, clearly establishes the oBence of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC. Similarly, the testimony of the complainant with regard to the criminal intimidation extended by the appellants has remained intact in material particulars and is suJcient to bring home the oBence under Section 506 IPC. The mere fact that some of the witnesses have turned hostile does not weaken the main prosecution case, because the case can still be proved on the basis of reliable and trustworthy evidence of other wit- nesses, particularly the injured complainant, as it is well settled that conviction can be based on the trustworthy testimony of the injured wit- ness. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 and 506 IPC is hereby aJrmed and maintained. 23.Having regard to the nature of the incident, the manner in which it oc- curred, and the fact that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. The occurrence appears to have arisen out of a sudden alterca- tion without premeditation, and there is no material on record to suggest that the appellants are a habitual oBender. The incident is of the year 2009, and more than a decade has elapsed since then, during which period the appellants have faced the rigours of criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. 24.Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 451, 323 and 506 Part- 2 of the Indian Penal Code (the 10 conviction under Section 452 IPC having been converted to one under Section 451 IPC), the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are sen- tenced to 7ne only for the aforesaid oBences. The 9ne amounts as im- posed by the learned Trial Court are maintained. Since the 9ne has al- ready been deposited by the appellants, as evident from Annexure A/2, no further amount is required to be paid. Accordingly, the appel- lants are discharged from the liability of undergoing any substantive custodial sentence. 25.The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 26. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti