1 2026:CGHC:19711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.179 of 2022 Janki Nag W/o Late Prakash Kumar Nag Aged About 50 Years R/o Bada Bazar, Chirmiri, Post Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Abhishek Agrahari S/o Bhagwan Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Bada Bazar, Chirmiri, Post Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shweta Agrahari W/o Santosh Kumar Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Datta Colony Ambikapur, Ward No.12, At Present Near Purana Bus Stand, House Of Mulchand Gupta, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, AJAK, Baikunthpur,District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.3/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 28/04/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Complainant under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 26/10/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korea (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Special SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.04.29 10:51:24 +0530 2 (Atrocity) Case No.20/2019, whereby, the respondents No.1 and 2 have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act, 1989”). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-8) was lodged by the complainant sometimes in the month of October, 2018 before the Police Station-Chirmiri, District Korea (CG), alleging inter alia, that on 15/09/2018 around 10 PM, she was worshiping in the main gate of her house and at that particular time, the respondent No.1-Abhishek Agrahari came along with his sister- Shweta, the respondent No.2 herein and started abusing her in a public place while calling her “witchcraft” and threatened to assault with the aid of slipper (chappal). According to her, the alleged incident was seen by one Chhangulal @ Shrawan Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad and Rajkumar Gupta and after considering the said report (Ex.P-8), an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered on 22/02/2019 against the respondents No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 5 of the Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) of the Act, 1989. After completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where, based upon the materials available on record, the respondents No.1 and 2 were charge-sheeted with regard to the 3 offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the independent witnesses, namely, Rajkumar Gupta (PW-4) and Chhangulal @ Shrawan Kumar (PW-7), alleged to have seen the occurrence of the alleged incident, have turned hostile and that by disbelieving the interested witnesses, namely Smt. Sukhman (PW-5) held the respondents innocent and, in consequence, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents No.1 and 2 are not involved for the commission of alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the complainant (PW-3) and of her niece, namely, Smt. Sukhman (PW-5), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that since there is delay of considerable period of more than 15 days in lodging the report with regard to the incident occurred on 15/09/2018 and, that by referring further the statement of independent witnesses, namely, Rajkumar Gupta (PW-4) and Chhangu Lal @ Shrawan Kumar (PW-7), who have failed to corroborate the statement of the complainant, contended that the 4 trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them as such. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents No.1 and 2 have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 on the allegation that on the date of incident, i.e. on 15/09/2018 around 10 P.M., when the complainant was worshiping in front of her house, she was abused by the respondents No.1 and 2 while calling her “Witchcraft” and also threatened her to assault with the aid of slipper (chappal). A bare perusal of the report (Ex.P-8) lodged by the complainant, it appears that the alleged incident was seen by one Chhangu Lal @ Shrawan Kumar (PW-7) and one Rajkumar Gupta (PW-4), but a bare perusal of their testimonies would, however, reveal the fact that they have, in fact, not aware what was happened on the date of the alleged incident. 8. That apart, a bare perusal of the statement of the complainant (PW-3), it appears that though, it was stated by her that she was called by the respondents as “Witchcraft” and was threatened to be assaulted with the aid of slipper (chappal), but has exaggerated by saying that she was abused by them with filthy words in the name of her mother as well, which was, however, not found in her said written report (Ex.P-8). Her statement is, therefore, deviated from her alleged allegations. Besides, it appears further from her testimony 5 that the alleged incident was seen by her niece, namely, Smt. Sukhman (PW-5) and also by her mother, but the said fact was, however, not revealed from her said report that they have seen the alleged incident. In view thereof, the statement of Smt. Sukhman (PW-5), though corroborated to some extent to the allegations made by the complainant, but in absence of her presence, shown to be recorded in her alleged written report, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon her (PW-5), nor her (PW-3) alleged allegations are found to be corroborated by the independent witnesses, namely, Chhangu Lal @ Shrawan Kumar (PW-7) and one Rajkumar Gupta (PW-4), as observed hereinabove. 9. It is to be noted here further, that the incident was occurred on 15/09/2018, but no report was lodged immediately thereafter and, instead, it was found to be lodged only after passing of the considerable period of more than 18 to 19 days, even without offering any explanation for it as to why it was lodged much after the considerable period from the occurrence of the alleged incident. 10. In view of the aforesaid background and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents No.1 and 2 from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane