1 2026:CGHC:1765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 227 of 2023 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, Raipur, (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. Devesh Singh Thakur S/o Harisingh Thakur, Aged About 40 Years, 2. Ku. Vartika Thakur D/o Harisingh Thakur, Aged About 34 Years, Both Are R/o Rathore Chowk, Ramsagarpara, Police Station- Moudahapara, Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant/State Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. For Respondents Mr. Anaway Tiwari, Advocate For Complainant/Dr. Navneet Sonwani Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 12/01/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 28/01/2023 passed by the Special Judge, CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.12 18:36:09 +0530 2 (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No.38/2021, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 and 457 of IPC, read with Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-Dr. Navneet Sonwani, have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 and 457 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act on the allegation made by the complainant-Dr. Navneet Sonwani in his written report (Ex.P-1), dated 19/03/2021 that on the date of incident, i.e., 18/03/2021 at about 11:55 to 12 AM, he was at home alongwith his wife-Swastika and one year old of his daughter-Tiyana and, at the relevant point of time, the respondents came and entered into his house and started abusing him in the name of his caste and assaulted him with the aid of brick, stone and also with the aid of stick and have torn his cloth and broken the golden chain. It is alleged further by him that the respondents while abusing him in the name of his caste were assaulting him with the aid of brick and the sister of his wife, namely, Vartika Thakur had supported the alleged act of theirs’ and the alleged incident was seen by the watchman of the house as well as one ‘Dental Dealer’, namely, C.P. Sahu, who had come for dropping the clinic materials. 3 3) From perusal of the statement of the complainant-Dr. Navneet Sonwani (PW-1), it appears that he was abused and assaulted by the respondents, but, his version is, however, not found to be corroborated by the dealer-C.P. Sahu (PW-3), the eye witness, as there is material contradictions in his statement. As, according to the written report (Ex.P-1), lodged by the complainant-Dr. Navneet Sonwani, it appears that the respondents have entered into his house, but the said fact was, however, not made by him (PW-3). It is to be seen further that, though it was alleged by the complainant that he was abused and assaulted by the respondents, while abusing him in the name of his caste, but has failed to state that what abusing words regarding his caste was used by them, as the same is neither reflected from his written report, nor was found to be corroborated by said eye witness-C.P. Sahu, so as to place reliance on his testimony in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 4) That apart, according to the complainant, he was assaulted by the respondents with the aid of brick, but the said fact was also not revealed from his (PW-3) statement as he was stating that the respondent no.1-Devesh Singh Thakur has hold the brick in order to assault the complainant and was trying to assault him. It is to be noted here further, as revealed from his report (Ex.P-1) as well as of his (PW-1) statement that his cloth was torn and golden chain was broken down on account of the alleged incident, but none of these articles were recovered by the prosecution, nor even the stick, alleged to have been used by the respondents, was seized. 4 5) In view of such circumstances and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court, therefore, has not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 6) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant