1 / 6 2026:CGHC:14225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1839 of 2017 1 - Tekram Dhiwar S/o Ramsanehi @ Nehru Dhiwar Aged About 20 Years 2 - Kisan S/o Mannu Yadav Aged About 19 Years Both were R/o Village Lachhanpur Police Station Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 25/03/2026 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 14/11/2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Baloda-Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda-Bazar, Bhatapara, C.G. in S.S.T. No.13/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 / 6 sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of IPC S.I. for 01 Month and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 15 days. Under Section 323/34 of IPC S.I. for 03 Month and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to further under go S.I. for 01 Month Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Kamalnarayan Kurre lodged a written complainant to the effect that he is posted as Principal in the Government Higher Secondary School, Lachchanpur. During the annual function of the Government Higher Secondary School, Lachhanpur, when the school leader Prakashmani Patel stopped Tekram Dhiwar and Kishan Rawat from going towards the girls' make-up room, both of them beat up Prakashmani on account of which he suffered a serious injury near his eye and a fracture in his hand. On being asked not to do this, they abused him with casteist slurs and threatened to kill him. 3. On the basis of the complainant's written complaint, a case number 0/16 under sections 294, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the accused at Police Station Lavan. Later, a First Information Report (FIR) number 28/16, Ex.P.-10 was registered against the accused at Police Station Kasdol. Completing 3 / 6 other stages of investigation, the injured Prakashmani was examined at CHC Lavan. A spot map of the incident was prepared. The caste certificate of the complainant Kamalnarayan Kurre, according to which the complainant was declared to be a member of the Scheduled Caste. After completing the remaining proceedings of the investigation, the charge sheet was presented in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol on 10/06/2016, which was registered as Criminal Case No. S-208/16. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, finding the case to be exclusively triable by the Sessions Court/Special Court, ordered the prosecution. By order dated 04/07/2016, the case was transferred to the Sessions Court/Special Court Baloda Bazar, which was registered as a special sessions case, and the trial started. 4. On 27/07/2016, when the accused were charged under sections 294, 506 (Part II), 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they denied having committed the crime and sought trial. When they were tried under section 313 of the CrPC, they declared themselves innocent and that they had been falsely implicated and refused to give evidence in their defence. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Chandrahas Sahu (PW-1), Shatrughan Patel (PW-2), Kamalnarayan Kurre (PW-3), Prakashmani Patel (PW-4), Indrajeet Tandon (PW-5), Girdhari (PW-6), Sub-Inspector Jeevanlal Sahu (PW-7), SDOP S.S. Sharma (PW-8), Head Constable (Police) Dilip Toppo (PW-9) and Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-10). The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted 4 / 6 the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He would next contend that the sentence awarded to the appellants is S.I. for 03 Months and the appellants were in jail since 07/02/2016 to 10/02/2016 i.e. 03 days thereafter they were granted bail by this Court and presently also they are on bail. He would next contend that since the incident is of the year 2016 and more than 09 years have elapsed, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. 9. The testimony of the injured witness Prakashmani Patel (PW-4), assumes great evidentiary value. The said injured witness has categorically supported the prosecution case and has clearly deposed regarding the incident as well as the specific role played by the appellants. His presence at the place of occurrence is natural and duly established. 10. Her evidence finds due corroboration from the medical evidence as well as from other prosecution witnesses including Kamalnarayan Kurre (PW-3) and other prosecution witnesses. No material contradiction or omission has been brought on record which may discredit her testimony. 11. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness 5 / 6 stands on a higher pedestal, and unless there are strong and cogent reasons, the same cannot be discarded. In the present case, nothing material has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of Prakashmani Patel (PW-4). 12. Further, the ocular version of Prakashmani Patel (PW-4) finds due corroboration from the medical evidence. The injuries sustained by the injured witness have been duly proved by the medical officer, and there is no inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence. The defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt. Mere denial or suggestions are not sufficient to dislodge the cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 294 & 323/34 IPC is hereby affirmed. 14. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellants have remained in custody for a period of three days. Considering the nature of the offence, the manner of occurrence, and the fact that the incident pertains to the year 2016, this Court is of the opinion that sending the appellants back to jail at this stage would serve no useful purpose. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants are habitual offenders or that they have misused the liberty granted to them. The long passage of time and the short period of incarceration already undergone are relevant mitigating factors. 15. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of 6 / 6 imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., three days. The fine amount shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 18. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu