1 2026:CGHC:1800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 192 of 2024 1 - Sushil Kumar Palange S/o Shri Sukhdas Palange, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village - Nandeli Bhamgaon, Tahsil and Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manharan Sahu S/o Chintaram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village - Nandeli, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajeshwar Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village - Nandeli, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rameshwar Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village - Nandeli, Police Station- Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : None. For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 12 -01-2026 1. Perused I.A. No.01/2024 which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.01/2024 is allowed and the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Perused the acquittal appeal. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.27 20:39:26 +0530 2 4. The facts of the case are that the present respondents No.2 to 4 were accused persons in Special Sessions Case No.62/2021 which was decided by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 24-08-2023 and the present respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted from of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short ‘the SC/ST Act’) and have been convicted for the offence under Section 294, 323 and 427 of the IPC. Against the acquittal of the present respondents No.2 to 4 the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant. 5. From perusal of the impugned judgment dated 24-08-2023 passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the allegation against respondents No.2 to 4 with respect to the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the word used by the accused persons was considered to be not sufficient to convict them for the offence under the SC/ST Act and it does not come under the definition of intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant and also considered the material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution’s witnesses. 6. From the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Yogend Chandra and PW-2 Sushil Kumar Palange it transpires that the word uttered by the accused persons, though are abusive, but it certainly does not come under the definition provided under the SC/ST Act. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 would place the order dated 25-09-2025 passed by this Court in CRA 1320/2024 and would submit that against the conviction of respondents No.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 294, 323 and 427 of the IPC they preferred appeal CRA No.1320/2024 which has been disposed of on the basis of compromise between the parties vide order dated 25-09-2025 and in the present case also the application for compounding of the offence has been filed by the 3 parties on 22-08-2025 as the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute. 8. The copy of the order dated 25-09-2025 passed in CRA No.1320/2024 is taken on record. 9. The present is an acquittal appeal against the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under Atrocities Act and this Court does not find any sufficient material to reverse the finding of acquittal into conviction of respondents No.2 to 4. There should be strong and cogent evidence to convict the accused persons who have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, but the same are missing in the present case. Further, the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute. The application filed by respondents No.2 to 4 for compounding of the offence cannot be entertained as the offence under the SC/ST act is not compoundable. 10. From perusal of the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any sufficient reason to upset the finding recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under the SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil