1 2026:CGHC:4727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 233 of 2023 1 - Smt. Ghasnin Bai W/o Santu Ram Naag Aged About 12 Years R/o Village Khajrikona, Harradipa P.S. Sanna And District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sanna District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Nand Gopal S/o Tokhan Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Harradipa P.S. Sanna And District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shruti Shivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. ACQA No. 18 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Nand Gopal S/o Tokhan Yadav, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Khajrikona Harradipa, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For State/Appellant : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : None, though served. NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.01.29 15:34:50 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28/01/2026 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.05.2023, passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jashpur in Case No.62/2021, whereby the respondent – Nand Gopal has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, read with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v)(a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that respondent – Nand Gopal was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein- above on the basis of the complaint (Ex.P.-1) lodged by the complainant (PW-1) on 19.09.2021 before Police Station Sanna, Tehsil Sanna, District Jashpur, alleging inter alia, that on 17.09.2021, when she was alone at home, the respondent at that particular time, who was Upsarpanch of the Village Harradipa, came with intoxication state and asked her to make a bed and since he was a Upsarpanch, therefore, she was making bed for him, but with ill intentions, he caught hold of her hand and started pulling her and when she running away upon escaping herself, he, then caught hold of her hair and started pulling, but she somehow managed to escape herself from his clutches and came out of the house and informed her husband regarding the alleged incident as he was coming towards house at the relevant time. Based upon the alleged allegation, the respondent has, 3 thus, been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and from her testimony, it appears that on the date of incident at 3:00 p.m., respondent – Nand Gopal came with intoxication state and tried to outrage her modesty. It appears from her cross-examination that on the date of the incident, her one son was sleeping at the main gate of the house and, it reveals further from her testimony that in the next morning, she informed the alleged incident to her daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Bhabhi). Further her testimony would reveal the fact that one Sangeeta Singh was the Sarpanch of the concerned Village and the relation of the accused with her and her husband, namely, Pradeep Diwan was not cordial, as he used to lodge complaints against her (Sangeeta Singh). It appears further from her evidence that her relation with said Sangeeta Singh and her husband was cordial in nature and she belongs to their group and used to act according to their advice. Further of her testimony, as revealed from para 14 would show that she lodged the alleged report (Ex.P.-1) at the instance of said Pradeep Diwan, the husband of said Sangeeta Singh, where she has just put her thumb impression and was even not aware what was written therein. It is to be seen further, as revealed from para 11 of her testimony, that the respondent/accused was at home when her husband came and they did not hold the accused, who was there for about half an hour and, from para 12 of her testimony, the alleged incident was informed to her daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Bahbhi). Her husband was examined as PW-2 and he also stated that their relation with said Sangeeta Singh and her husband was cordial in 4 nature and they belong to their group and the relation of the accused with said Sangeeta Singh was not cordial, as he used to lodge complaints against her and, it reveals further from his testimony that the alleged report was lodged at the instance of her (Sangeeta Singh) husband and they were not aware what was written in the alleged complaint (Ex.P-1), as was stated by his wife - the complainant. 4. From perusal of the statement of the complainant and her husband, it appears that the alleged complaint was made at the instance of said Pradeep diwan and, neither she nor her husband was aware what was, in fact, written in the alleged complaint (Ex.P-1), lodged on 19.09.2021 after one and a half day after the occurrence of the alleged incident, which occurred on 17.07.2021 and, rather, it appears that she had just put her thumb impression on it without knowing the actual fact. It is to be seen further, as revealed from her testimony that though her son was sleeping at the main gate of the complainant’s house and the alleged incident was disclosed by her to her daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Bhabhi), but for the reasons based known to the prosecution, they were, however, not examined. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon her testimony in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court, after taking note of these materials, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime 5. In view of above, both these appeals, being devoid of merit are, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Nikita JUDGE