1 2026:CGHC:20762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 36 of 2021 State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (CG) ...Appellant versus 1 - Anand Agrawal S/o Mange Ram Agrawal, Aged 32 Years Occupation Business, R/o Village Chhal, P.S. Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, (CG) 2 - Mange Ram Agrawal S/o Late Kedarnath Agrawal, Aged 65 years, Occupation Business, R/o Village Chhal, P.S. Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Tejasva Dev, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.05.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20/06/2013, passed by the Special Judge (Under SC/ST Act), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 26/2010, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.05.04 18:25:33 +0530 2 the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II) and 384 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1989’). 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that a written report (Ex.P- 3) was lodged by one Nilambar Singh Rathiya on 19/11/2009 before the Police Station, Chhal, District Raigarh, alleging inter alia, that his wife- Smt. Malti Rathiya is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chhal, while he is Panch, but a resident of the said village, namely, Anand Agrawal, who is a News Reporter in daily newspaper, is demanding illegal amount from him and his wife for the last one year, for the construction of work done at the village and has threatening to defame him while publishing incorrect information in the newspaper on the allegation of embezzlement in carrying out work at Gram Panchayat and, threatened to send him and his wife behind the jail. It is alleged further that whenever he has tried to contact him, he abused him in the name of his mother and threatened to defame him and his wife, while publishing incorrect information in the newspaper. It is alleged further by him that on 26th January, 2009, 15th August, 2009 and also at the time of Dussera and Deepawali festival, he has demanded illegal amount from him and when it was denied, he then abused him while using filthy words in the name of his mother and caste. Further of his allegation, as revealed from his report (Ex.P-3) would show that since he has refused to fulfill his illegal demand, an incorrect information was published by him in daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” on 10th October, 2009 and 14th November, 2009 in order to blackmail him. It is alleged further that on 19/11/2009, when he contacted him (Anand Agrawal), then he and his 3 father Mange Ram Agrawal has abused him, while using filthy words in the name of his mother and caste and has abused his brother and sister as such. Based upon the alleged allegation, an FIR (Ex.P-4) was registered against the respondents in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC, read with Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, 1989 and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein- above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and has exhibited 14 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the complainant has failed to established the alleged allegations made in the alleged of his report (Ex.P-3) and as the allegation of him was not found to be supported by other eye witnesses, namely, Upendra Singh Thakur (PW-9), Satyendra Jaiswal (PW-10) and Ajay Srivas (PW-11), therefore, they cannot be held to be liable and, accordingly, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently, 4 contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch, as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the complainant- Nilambar Singh Rathiya (PW-3) has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquital as passed by the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II) and 384 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, on the allegations, made by the complainant on 19/11/2009, that he and his wife, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Chhal was abused with filthy words and threatened to send them jail, if they refused to fulfill the demand of amount under the garb of disclosing the embezzlement regarding the construction work done at the Gram Panchayat, Chhal. It reveals further from his alleged allegation that on account of non-fulfilling his alleged demand, they have been abused and threatened as such and the alleged report (Ex.P-3) would reveal further that the alleged illegal demand of money was made by said Anand Agrawal with the complainant on 26th January, 2009, 15th August, 2009 and also at the time of the Dussera and Deepawali festival and when he refused, he was then abused with filthy words in the name of his mother and caste and an incorrect publication was made by him in 5 the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” on 10th October, 2009 and 14th November, 2009 in order to blackmail him. Though, it was alleged as such, but when he (PW-3) was examined, it was however, not stated as such that the alleged illegal demand was made either on 26th January, 2009, 15th August, 2009 or even at the time of Dussera and Deepawali festival, or has alleged anywhere that on account of non-fulfilling his alleged illegal demand, an incorrect publication was made on 10th October, 2009 and 14th November, 2009 in the said daily newspaper and instead, it was stated by him that the alleged incorrect information was published in the month of November, 2009. His statement is, thus, found to be deviated from his own alleged allegation, made in his report (Ex. P-3). Besides, it appears further from para 4 of his testimony that his wife- Smt. Malti Rathiya was also abused by him in the name of mother and, his father, who came after sometime has also abused as such, but the said fact was, however, neither reflected from his alleged report (Ex.P-3), nor in order to establish the alleged allegations, wife of him, namely, Smt. Malti Rathiya was examined. 9. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as revealed from para 10 of his cross-examination that the alleged incident was seen by Ajay Srivas (PW-11), Upendra Singh Thakur (PW-9), Satyendra Jaiswal (PW-10) and also one Jitendra Singh, but out of these witnesses, namely, Ajay Srivas (PW-11), Upendra Singh Thakur (PW-9) and Satyendra Jaiswal (PW-10) have, however, not supported the alleged of his allegation and said Jitendra Singh, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was not examined. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, and in absence of any cogent and 6 reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court, has therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them 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 sunita