1 2026:CGHC:5261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.674 of 2010 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 25.11.2025 30.01.2026 -- 30.01.2026 1 - Manoj Pandey S/o Dev Prasad Pandey R/o Ward No.4, Patharia, PS Pathaira, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Patharia, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2010 passed by the learned Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in ST No.41/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 3 (1) Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.09.2008 at about 1:45 p.m. complainant namely Uttra Kumar Dhritlahre was working in the office of Executive Engineer CSEB Sub station Patharia, at that time present appellant and other persons entered into the office and demanded Rs.1000/- for donation of Durga worship. The complainant denied to give the same however he was ready to give Rs. 100/-,for above reason the appellant and other persons abused the complainant on his caste, thereafter the report was lodged by the complainant against the accused persons. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. All the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile, despite the same the appellant has been convicted. He further submits that the learned trial Court 3 acquitted the co-accused namely Krishna @ Babla Sahu and convicted the appellant on same set of evidence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of The State of Chhatisgarh vs Laxmi Prasad Yadav, passed in CRMP No.222/2013 vide judgment dated 03.07.2014 and the judgment rendered by the High Court of MP in the matters of Ramcharan vs State of M.P., reported in (2013) 1 ANJ 134, Shankarlal vs State of M.P., reported in (2013) ILR (MP) 2457, Jagdish and another vs State of M.P., reported in 2010 (5) MPHT 119 and in the matter of Ashutosh Tiwari vs Kamlesh Shukla, passed in Criminal Case No.6138/2010 vide judgment dated 06.11.2023. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 451, 384, 294 & 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the 4 appellant and the co-accused Krushna and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused of the aforesaid charges, whereas the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 451, 384, 294 & 506 of IPC and convicted him under Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The complainant Uttara Kumar Dhratlahre stated that he was posted as Junior Engineer in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and was going to control room and behind him the appellant also came and asked for donation of Rs.100/- for durga pooja, to which he denied and abused him on his caste. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the Station House Officer at Police Station Mungeli Shri Dhritlahre is his real brother but he denied this suggestion that he made a call by his brother to Police Station Pathariya. He denied this suggestion that he lodged a false report due to previous quarrel with the appellant. 8. PW-2 Jeevan Lal Rajput, PW-3 Vijay Gendle, PW-4 Ganesh Tiwari all independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of prosecution and also denied their police statement. 9. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the appellant of the 5 charges under Sections 451, 384, 294 & 506 of IPC. All sections created main offence but the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant on this ground that he pronounced caste of the appellant. 10. It is clear from the statements of the independent witnesses that they have not supported the statement of the complainant and the learned Trial Court itself found that the offence under Sections 451, 384, 294 & 506 of IPC are not made out against the appellant. The statements of the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses are also not reliable. 11. This Court in Laxmi Prasad Yadav (supra) held in para 21 as under:- “21. Thus, it is held that in the instant case, merely calling the complainant by accused from his caste (Kawar Adiwashi) as there is no proof of intention of insulting or humiliating him, do not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and there is also no proof brought on record that the respondent is not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” 12. The Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in Jagdish (supra) held in para 6 as under:- “6. From perusal of the record it is evident that the complainant Amritlal is Sarpanch of the village and is from SC/ST category. Allegation against the petitioners was that the meeting of Panchayat was called on 1-2- 2008 and the same was adjourned as the quorum was not completed. Since the meeting was adjourned, therefore, petitioners abused the complainant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that any obstruction was caused by the petitioners to the complainant who was the public servant in discharge of his public duties. Similarly, there is no evidence whereby it can be said that the petitioners threatened the complainant. The 6 alleged incident also took place after the meeting was adjourned, therefore, it cannot be said that at the time when the dispute took place between the parties the complainant was discharging his public duties. It is true that in the statement of the witnesses it has come that the petitioners have abused the complainant, but there is nothing to demonstrate that the words which were spoken while abusing was with the intention to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of caste.” 13. In light of the above, it is clear that in the present case also, the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the appellant abused the complainant in public place and pronounced his caste with intention to insult and humiliate him but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these aspects of the matter and gave wrong finding. Thus the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala