1 2026:CGHC:1260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 260 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Ajak, District : Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Neetu Singh W/o Omprakash Mahra, Aged About 35 Years, 2 - Bhimsen Gupta S/o Ansuiya Gupta, Aged About 52 Years Both Address: Janakpur, Thana- Janakpur, District : Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : None Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 08.01.2026 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 29.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.09 10:29:52 +0530 2 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Special (Atrocities) Case No.42/2020, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506- Part II of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1989”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report(Ex.P/1) was lodged by the Complainant on 11.09.2019 before the Police Station- Baikunthpur, District Koriya, alleging inter alia, that on the date of incident when she was in her shop, the respondent No.1- Neetu Singh, at the relevant point of time, came and started abusing her while using filthy words in public place and assaulted her with the aid of slipper (Chappal). Further of her allegation as revealed from her written report would show that the respondent No.2- Bhimsen Gupta has also abused her while abusing in the name of her caste and based upon the alleged allegations, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered by the concerned Police Station on 27.11.2019 against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 1989 and, based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 1989, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that although it was alleged by the complainant (PW-1) in her written report Ex.P/1 that, on the date of incident i.e. 11/09/2019 when she was doing her embroidery work in the shop, the respondent No.1- Neetu Singh came and abused her while using filthy words and assaulted her with the aid of slipper, while the respondent No.2- Bhimsen Gupta has abused her in the name of her caste. 4. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant was examined as PW-1 and from perusal of her statement would show that the alleged incident was seen by her husband (PW-2), but, the alleged fact, was not disclosed by her in her written report (Ex.P/1). That apart, it reveals further from her testimony that the said respondent has inflicted herself and lodged the report against her and the said fact was also not revealed from her alleged report (Ex.P/1). It is to be seen further that although, it was alleged, in her report Ex.P/1 and the statement, that she was assaulted by the respondent No.1 with the aid of slipper, but no slipper as such was seized from the said respondent No.1. Her statement, thus, appears to be exaggerated in nature and cannot be relied upon in order to hold that she was abused or assaulted as such by the respondents. Her husband (PW-2) has, stated in his evidence that when his wife was at her shop, she was abused by the respondent No.1 in the name of the caste, as well as, by the respondent No.2- Bhimsen Gupta, but, the alleged fact was, however, not revealed from his wife’s alleged report (Ex.P/1) that she was abused by the respondent No.1 in the name of her caste. Further 4 of his statement would show that the alleged incident was seen by one Sunnat Khan, Gareeba Mourya and Munni Bai, but neither Munni Bai, nor the said Gareeba Mourya were examined in order to establish the alleged allegations and, insofar as Sunnat Bi (PW-4) is concerned, it appears from her statement that the complainant was abused by Respondent No.1- Neetu Singh in the name of her caste, though, the alleged fact, as observed herein-above, was not revealed from the complainant’s written report (Ex.P/1). That apart, it appears from her cross-examination that she has also faced the trial, based upon the report lodged by respondent No.1- Neetu Singh. Her statement, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 5. It, thus, appears from the aforesaid circumstance that the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that on the said fateful day, she was abused and assaulted as such by the respondents, so as to hold them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294 and 506 part-II of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 1989 and, the trial Court after taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality 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/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita