1 CGHC010057012026 2026:CGHC:42763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 436 of 2026 1 - Hari Om Dubey S/o Late Narayan Dubey Aged About 45 Years R/o Vaishali Residence 404, Guru Nanak Chowk, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 01/10/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14- A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (henceforth, “the Act, 1989”) read with Section 415 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act (Atrocity), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Criminal Case (Atrocity) No.06/2020, whereby the learned Special Court has acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.10.06 15:36:32 +0530 2 Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Sections 3(1)(द) and 3(1)(ब)(i) of the Act, 1989, but has convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.02.2018 at about 11:00 a.m., complainant Manju Kujur was on duty in the HD Ward of Central Railway Hospital, Bilaspur. At that time, the appellant came to the hospital in connection with the discharge of a patient, namely Sheela Singh. During the course of discussion regarding the discharge of the patient and payment of the hospital bill, the appellant allegedly abused the complainant in filthy and obscene language, caught hold of her hand and tried to pull her. He also threatened her and attempted to forcibly take her outside the hospital. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR No.38/2018 was registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Spot map (Ex. P-2A) was prepared. Complainant’s caste certificate (Article ‘1C’) was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-1. The statement of the victim/complainant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 & 354(क) of the IPC and Sections 3(2) (v-क)(द), 3(1)(द)(ध) and 3(1)(ब)(i)(ii) of the Act, 1989. 3. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 354 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(द) and 3(1)(ब)(i) of the Act, 1989, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 3 4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents including Article ‘1C’. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution and claimed innocence. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence available on record, the learned Special Court acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 354 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(द) and 3(1)(ब)(i) of the Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 352 of the IPC as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been acquitted of the offences under Section 294, 506 part-II & 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(द) & 3(1)(ब)(i) of the Act, 1989 by extending to him benefit of doubt; however, on same set of facts, he has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 352 IPC by the learned Special Court. He further submits that the learned Special Court has held that the appellant tried to snatch discharge paper of Sheela Singh from the hand of complainant. However, at the same time, it has not relied upon the deposition of the victim (PW-6) to the extent that the appellant had caught hold of her hand. It is further submitted that Hirawati Rathod (PW-1), who has been projected as an eye-witness, has not supported the deposition of the victim (PW-6) regarding the appellant having tried to snatch the discharge paper from her hand. It is also submitted that no such discharge slip was seized by the police during investigation. Learned counsel for the 4 appellant further submits that Bina Camble (PW-2) was also cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet, but she has not stated anything regarding the alleged dispute in her deposition. Similarly, Shravan Kumar Meena and Dr. P.K. Chakraborty were also cited as eye-witnesses to the incident, but they were not examined by the prosecution and were given up. He lastly submits that when the learned Special Court itself did not find the deposition of the victim wholly reliable and acquitted the appellant of the other offences, it could not have relied upon a part of the same statement for recording conviction under Section 352 of the IPC, particularly when such part of the statement was not supported by the other prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the victim (PW-6) has specifically stated in her deposition that the appellant tried to snatch the discharge paper of Sheela Singh from her hand. He further submits that Hirawati Rathod (PW-1) has also supported the deposition of the victim and has stated that the appellant quarrelled with the victim, abused and threatened her and also pulled her by holding her hand. He further submits that the impugned judgment is based on well appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The principal question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 5 appellant used criminal force against the victim/complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC. 10. In order to decide the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to consider the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. The victim/complainant (PW-6) has specifically stated in her deposition that the appellant came to the hospital in connection with the discharge of Sheela Singh and, without payment of the medical bill, tried to take the discharge paper from her hand. She has further stated that during the said incident, the appellant caught hold of her hand. Thus, her evidence is specific with regard to the use of criminal force by the appellant. 11. The statement of the complainant/victim is supported by Hirawati Rathod (PW-1). She has stated that the appellant quarrelled with the complainant and, during the incident, abused and threatened her and pulled her by holding her hand. Thus, PW-1 supports the statement of PW-6 regarding the use of criminal force by the appellant. 12. Merely because there are some discrepancies or contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, their entire testimony cannot be discarded. The contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not material enough to disbelieve the depositions of PW-1 and PW-6. Nothing material has been brought out in their cross-examination to discard their statements made before the Court or to render their evidence unreliable regarding the act of catching hold of the hand and pulling the complainant. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding non- seizure of the discharge slip and non-examination of Bina Camble (PW-2), Shravan Kumar Meena and Dr. P.K. Chakraborty does not materially affect the prosecution case. The charge under Section 352 of the IPC has to be 6 decided on the basis of the evidence regarding the use of assault or criminal force. The non-seizure of the discharge paper or non-examination of some other witnesses, by itself, cannot discredit the statements of PW-6 and PW-1 regarding the physical act committed by the appellant. 14. It is also well settled that the testimony of a witness cannot be disbelieved completely merely because the witness has not been believed with regard to every allegation made by the prosecution. The Court has to consider the evidence relating to each allegation separately and accept the part which is found reliable. In the present case, the learned Special Court did not find sufficient evidence to establish the offences under Sections 294, 354 and 506 of the IPC and the provisions of the Act, 1989. However, that finding, by itself, does not make the evidence unreliable, particularly when there is specific and corroborated evidence that the appellant caught hold of the complainant’s hand and pulled her. 15. The evidence on record, particularly the statements of PW-6 and PW- 1, shows that during the altercation regarding the discharge of Sheela Singh, the appellant caught hold of the complainant's hand and pulled her, that too without payment of bill amount. Such act amounts to use of criminal force against the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 352 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Special Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 352 of the IPC. The finding of conviction is based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 7 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act (Atrocity), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (Atrocity) No.06/2020. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC and the sentence imposed therefor are hereby affirmed. 18. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 19. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the concerned Special Court be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar