1 CGHC010223322023 2026:CGHC:41082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 232 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station A J K, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Mulema Singh, W/o Late Anjani Singh Aged About 65 Years, 2 - Ramesh Singh S/o Late Anjani Singh Aged About 35 Years, Both are R/o Green Saap Dafai Haldibadi, Police Station Chirmiri, District : Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For appellant/State : Shri Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy.G.A. For Respondents : Shri Ravi Kumar Banjare & Ms. Sakunthala Ratre, Advocates. SB: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. Present is an acquittal appeal under Section 14(A) (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC & ST Act’) filed by the appellant/State against the judgment of acquittal dated GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.09.23 16:22:30 +0530 2 01/12/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Koria in Special Criminal Case No.50/2017 whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of Sections 452, 294, 506 Part -II of IPC and sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 04/03/2017 complainant PW-1 made a written complaint Ex.P-1 to the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur with the allegation that three years back she had given loan of Rs.3,30,000/- to the accused with the assurance that she could repay the amount within two years. When she has not repaid the said amount, complainant made demand of the said amount then on 06/01/2017 at about 4 pm the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant abused her and her daughter in the name of their caste and threatened them of dire consequences. She made a complaint to Police Station, Chirmiri but her complaint has not been registered. The complaint made to the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the concerned Police Station where the FIR Ex.P-8 was registered for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 447, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act against the accused persons. Spot map Ex.P-2 was prepared by the police and Ex.P-3 was prepared by the Patwari. The social status certificate of the complainant has been seized by seizure memo Ex.P-4, the bank pass book of the complainant were 3 also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. The accused persons were arrested on 30/10/2017. Copy of the agreement dated 5/02/2013 Article-2 was seized by the police vide seizure memo Article-1. Statement of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 294, 451, 506, 447, 448 & 34 of IPC & 3(1)(x), r & s of the SC & ST Act. 3. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 452, 294, 506 part-II of IPC and 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC & ST Act. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused from all the offences. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved it’s case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor omission or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for the alleged offence. The complainant PW-01 has duly supported the prosecution case which has been supported by the agreement Article-2. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons on surmises and conjectures and also found that the word uttered by the accused persons does not satisfy the offence of the section 294 of IPC as well as Section 3(1) (r) & (s) of the SC and ST Act. The complainant has clearly stated that the accused persons tress passed the house of the complainant, they abused and threatened the complainant. Merely on the ground that some dispute exist between them would not be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused. Yet the learned trial Court has acquitted them from the offence, impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from illegality and perversity, same is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused persons may be convicted for the alleged offences. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused persons supported the impugned judgment and submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and they have rightly 5 been acquitted from the trial Court. Impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. It transpires from the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court that the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused after considering that the complainant has failed to prove the exact obscene words allegedly used by the accused, the alleged incident has occurred inside the house of the complainant which is not the place within the public view and therefore the offence under the Atrocities Act is not made out against them. Further that there was dispute between the complainant and the accused and the complaint case filed by the complainant against the accused persons for dishonour of cheque was dismissed whereas on the complaint made by the accused persons against the complainant, she is being prosecuted and criminal case is pending at Chirmiri Court. The learned trial Court has further observed that the FIR has been lodged after about 6 months for which there is no explanation though there is explanation that she made a complaint to the police authority but no action have been taken and thus for want of sufficient explanation for delayed lodging of the report, the prosecution case itself is doubtful. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused. When this Court re-appreciates the evidence led by the prosecution, 6 this Court finds that the consideration of the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 9. PW-01 complainant has stated in her evidence that in the year 2013 at the time of her retirement she received her retiral benefits, out of which she advanced loan to the accused persons for Rs.3,30,000/- and an agreement was executed in stamp paper. In the year 2015 the son of the accused Mulema Singh was employed but they have not returned their amount. In the month of December, 2017 when she asked Mulema Singh to refund her amount, then on 06/01/2017 she along with her son came to her house abused her in the name of her caste, threatened her and also used filthy language. Incident was witnessed by Dhaneshwar Nagesiya and Rajmaniya. She made a report which is Ex.P-1. 10. In cross-examination, she admitted that on the report made by the accused persons, criminal case is pending against her at Chirmiri Court. She further admitted that she also prosecuted Mulema Singh for dishonour of cheque but the said complaint was dismissed by the Court. She further admitted that the accused Mulema Singh paid Rs.40,000/- to her son-in-law. When she was confronted with her evidence led before the trial Court in cheque bounce case, she denied that she had given such evidence before the Court. She stated that in the agreement there was no time fixed for refund of the amount of loan. 11. From perusal of the written complaint Ex.P-1 lodged by the complainant PW-01, it transpires that the date of incident is alleged to be occurred on 06/01/2017 whereas she made written complaint 7 to the Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur on 04/03/2017 i.e. after about 2 months of the alleged date of the incident. 12. PW-2 Dhaneshwar Sai Nagesiya he is claimed to be the eye witness to the incident. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 4 pm when he had gone to the grocery shop of Mahadev, he saw that complainant and the accused were quarreling in the courtyard of the complainant. The accused Mulema Singh was also present there but she has not abused the complainant. The accused Ramesh was saying that he will not return the amount of the complainant. In his evidence there is no any utterance of any obscene word which can be considered that the complainant was abused by the accused persons with filthy language. 13. PW-3 Rajmaniya is also claimed to be the eye witness but she also did not disclose any word uttered by the accused persons which can be considered to be obscene word. Though she stated that in the courtyard of the complainant quarrel took place between them and quarrel was with respect to their money transaction. In cross-examination, she stated that when she reached on the spot quarrel was already going on, the quarrel took place inside the house of the complainant. She only stated that the accused persons were abusing the complainant but she did not know what type of abuse they made against the complainant. 14. PW-4 Saniya Chowdhary is the daughter of the complainant, she stated in her evidence that her mother and the accused Mulema Singh were good friends, at the time of retirement of her mother Mulema Singh borrowed an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- for which a 8 deed was executed in the stamp paper. Even after employment of her son, she could return the amount to her mother. When her mother demanded money back, on 06/01/2017, the accused persons came inside the house and abused them with filthy language they were annoyed by the filthy language and then her mother lodged the report. 15. In the cross-examination, she stated that at the time of loan transaction, there was no time limit fixed for refund of the amount but Mulema Singh assured them that whenever her son is employed, she would return the amount. She further stated that she has not disclosed the date of the incident in her police statement. 16. After considering the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused by holding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 of IPC has not been satisfied by the prosecution, the place of the incident is inside the house which does not come under the place within the public view. The report has been lodged after a long delay and there is no sufficient explanation for delayed lodging of the report, there is long standing dispute with respect to money transaction between the complainant and the accused and further that the complaint case for dishonour of cheque filed by the complainant has been dismissed and that on the report made by the accused, criminal case is pending against the complainant before the Chirmiri Court. All these factual aspects have been considered by the learned trial Court and by giving benefit of doubt, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted. 9 17. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 18.Further, in case of “Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala”, reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under :- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 19.After considering the material available on record as well as the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kistoora Ram (Supra) and Jafarudheen (Supra), that in an appeal against acquittal, if the view 10 taken by the trial Court is a possible and plausible view on the basis of the evidence available on record, the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal and the same cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and constitute a plausible view. I, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge gouri