1 2026:CGHC:5315 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1138 of 2022 Anil Jaiswal S/o Rajendra Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years R/o Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through - Station House Officer, Police of Police Station - Ajak Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Gunjam Taram, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Special ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.02 10:32:40 +0530 2 Case No. 20/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction : Sentence Under section 323 of IPC RI for 4 months and fine of Rs.600/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 15 days. 2. However, by the same judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted him of charges u/s 294, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(r)) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 holding that no such offences are proved under these sections. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.05.2020, complainant Mahendra Aayam filed report in Police Station Pratappur to the effect that he is a Scheduled Tribe member and was working as a welder at the welding shop of the accused appellant Anil Jaiswal for the past 10-12 years. On 24/25th May, 2020 the complainant was unable to go to work due to Corona pandemic lock down, which caused provocation to the accused. On 25.5.2020 at 2.30 p.m., when the complainant was sleeping in his house, the accused came near his house and started abusing him using obscene language in the name of his mother and sister and further hurled caste based abuses. When the complainant came out, he was assaulted with hands and fists, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries on his head, left eye and chest. The incident was witnessed by the mother of the complainant as also the wife of constable Ravi. On such report, Crime was registered against the accused for the offence u/s 294, 506 & 323 of IPC. After completing the investigation and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3 4. The prosecution has in all examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident had taken place on a minor altercation and the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the main offences u/ss 296, 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) of the Special Act as the prosecution has not been able to prove the same. She further submits that as per the medical report (Ex.P-5) given by the doctor (Ex.P-5), the appellant suffered a mild contusion over the area of left eye, which is simple in nature. She next submits that the appellant was on bail throughout the trial and appeal and as per Ex.P-6, he has no previous record of criminal antecedents, therefore, looking to the nature of offence and the conduct of appellant, the court may exercise the discretion to modify the sentence of short term imprisonment by enhancing fine. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of witnesses especially complainant Mahendra Singh Ayam (P.W.2) which further stood firm by the statement of Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (P.W.6) and documents exhibited on record, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. However, as regards the sentence of Appellant, looking to the nature of offence and conduct of the appellant, especially when the offence stems from a minor altercation and further considering his present age as also the fact that as per the arrest memo (Ex.P-6), no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice, instead of sending the appellant to jail years later which serves no rehabilitative purpose, this Court is inclined to to modify the sentence from imprisonment of 4 months RI to enhancement of fine. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that the imprisonment of 4 months RI is modified by increasing the fine amount of Rs.600/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is directed to undergo RI for 15 days RI. If any amount is already deposited before the trial Court the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount, which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 12. Appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao