1 2026:CGHC:13433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 43 of 2026 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Raghvendra Rathore S/o Late Pandulal Rathore Aged About 50 Years R/o Halahuli, P.S. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Depty Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 19/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa 2 (C.G.) whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2024 at about 9:00 P.M. there was a quarrel took place between the complainant and the respondent/ accused near Bharni Talab at Village – Bundeli, Police Station – Malkharoda. With respect to the altercation took place between the complainant and the accused, the report has been lodged by the complainant Haldhar Ratre at police outpost - Adbhar on 19.03.2024 and the F.I.R. was registered against the respondent/accused. The statements were recorded and after due process of investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent/accused before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The charges were framed against the respondent/ accused, which were denied and claimed trial. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and recording statement of the respondent/ accused under Section 313 of CrPC, the respondent/ accused has been acquitted from the alleged offences by the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2025 which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the respondent/ accused to hold him guilty for the alleged offences, however, the learned trial 3 Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and acquitted him. The complainant P.W.-1 Haldhar Ratre have duly supported the prosecution’s case and his evidence is supported by other witnesses. The learned trial Court has also not considered the gravity of the offence that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and he was intentionally insulted and intimidated by the respondent/ accused and there is sufficient evidence also with respect to abuse the complainant in the name of his caste, but the accused has been acquitted. In view of the evidence available on record, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W.-1 who is the complainant in the case. The learned trial Court has considered in paragraph 15 of its judgment that the word used while alleged abusing the complainant is a normal word which normally used in the village and it has not been stated by the complainant that any annoyed was being caused to him by the said word. It is only during the altercation, the word of abuse has been used by the accused and there is no threat or intimidation reflected from the word uttered by the accused during the altercation, even the word used with respect to his caste is not sufficient to hold him guilty for the offence under the Atrocities Act. It was not intended attempt to insult the member of the particular caste or intimidate the complainant for the offence. After having consideration 4 the entire facts and evidences available on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/ accused in which this Court is also of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused and there is no scope for interference in this acquittal appeal. 7. In the case of appeal against acquittal, the law is well settled by Hon’ble the 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under: “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 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 analysed. 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. Considering the evidence available on record as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court is of the 5 considered opinion that the complainant has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, particularly in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit