1 2026:CGHC:11074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1072 of 2019 Jagan Ram Yadav S/o Anarjeet Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Pendarkhi, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through In Charge Of Police Station Aadim Jati Kalyan, Surajpur, Police Station Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PK Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Surendra Dewangan, PL & Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 03.03.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.06.2019, passed in Special Session Case No.52/2018 by learned Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Surajpur, District-Surajpur, (CG), whereby appellant stands convicted as under :- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Rigorous imprisonment for 1 month U/s 294 of IPC Fine of amount Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine 07 days additional RI. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 21.09.2018, at about 3:00 PM, when present appellant was going towards way of village- Pendarkhi in drunken condition, complainant told him to go his house, then the appellant used filthy language as also by his case knowing that he belongs to schedule tribe and, thereafter, committed Marpit with him. Based on report lodged by complainant, FIR was registered against the appellant for the alleged offence/crime. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence not examined any defence witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and 3 false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 323, 294 of the IPC as there is no specific evidence/material available to connect the appellant in the alleged crime/offence. Statements of the witnesses do not help the case of the prosecution. Version of complainant is not supported and corroborated by the independent witnesses, further there are material contradiction, omissions and improvement in version of complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The appreciation of evidence is not proper and according to law. Offence against the appellant has not been proved at any corner beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable be acquitted/discharged from the aforementioned charge/offence. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the 4 impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the same requires no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 9. With regard to the alleged incident, it has been stated by PW-1/complainant (Purushhottam Singh) in his Court statement that he knows the appellant. On the date of alleged incident, appellant-accused was coming from the side of Vishrampur on a bicycle under the influence of alcohol and abusing loudly, to which, he (complainant) told him (accused) to quietly go to his house and sleep and asked him why he was abusing, to which, accused abused him in filthy language referring to his mother and also abused him by his caste stating that who he was to stop him and, thereafter, the accused caught hold of his neck and threw him on the ground and gave me 10–12 punches below his left jaw near the neck and also pressed his neck. Due to the assault, he sustained injuries below his left jaw near the neck and left side of jaw and neck became swollen. He (complainant) further stated that he belongs to the Gond community and accused had known even before the incident that he belongs to the Gond caste/community. Two 5 days after the incident, he lodged the report regarding the alleged incident before the concerned Police Station. 10. PW-8/Dr. K.K. Tamrakar (medical officer) in his evidence has stated that on 28.09.2018, the police brought the injured/complainant/Parshottam Singh before him at CHC, Vishrampur for medical examination. Upon examining the injured, he opined that there was no any fracture and injury sustained by the injured was simple in nature. In his cross- examination, he stated that injury sustained by the injured could be caused by fallen on a hard and blunt object or by striking against such an object. He further stated that when the injured was brought before him, upon examination finds that said injury appeared to be old. 11. The testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by PW-1 Meera Bai (wife of the complainant), PW-4 Motilal Prajapati, and PW-9 Ramdhari. 12. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record, this Court finds that testimony of complainant Purushottam Singh (PW-1) is consistent and reliable; his statement regarding the incident of assault and abusive conduct by the appellant is duly corroborated by Meera Bai (PW-1), Motilal Prajapati (PW-4), Ramdhari (PW-9) and Dr. 6 K.K. Tamrakar (PW-8). The minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not go to the root of the prosecution case and are natural in the statements of witnesses. The overall evidence establishes that the appellant assaulted the complainant and used obscene and abusive language in a public place, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt, however, considering facts and circumstances of the case, manner in which incident took place, the fact that appellant is not having any previous criminal antecedents, incident is of the year 2018, ie, more than 07 years has been elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 323 of IPC is modified and converted into sentence of fine only. 13. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 294 of the IPC is hereby maintained. Conviction of appellant under Section 323 of IPC is also maintained, however, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month imposed under said Section is converted into a sentence of fine of 7 Rs.1,000/-, to be paid by the appellant. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 15. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-