Dismissed

Ajay Kurrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jan 2022ACQA/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acquittal appeal challenging an order dismissing charges of caste-based humiliation and illegal possession, the High Court upheld the trial Court's acquittal. The Court found material discrepancies regarding alleged injuries and concluded the incident stemmed from a prior dispute over land encroachment rather than caste bias.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the accused from the specified charges was upheld.

Ajay Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No.07 of 2022

¶4

Ajay Kurrey S/o Shri Bhagwat Kurrey Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Bemcha, Ward No. 04, Vardhman Nagar, Police Station Mahasamund , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajak Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2. Rohit Chandrakar S/o Shobhitram Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents

¶8

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State: Shri Afroj Khan, PL.

¶9

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶10

14.01.2022

¶11

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 372 Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge (S.C.S.T Act) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund in Special (Atrocities) Criminal Case No.H-17/2020 whereby, the accused Respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 Part-II IPC and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has been convicted only under Section 294 IPC.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant Ajay Kurre (PW-1) lodged FIR at PS Mahasamund wherein, he has stated that he lives at village Bemacha Bhatha and prior to three years, he had purchased a land from one Raj Kumar Beldar and constructed a house for himself in the year

¶13

¶14

The village Panchayat had demolished his house by saying that he had encroached the said land, yet, the Complainant continued residing in the land in question and on the date of incident i.e. on 09.04.2018, at about 10.00 am, the accused/Respondent No.2, who is the husband of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, used filthy language to the Complainant’s wife Smt Mamta Kurre (PW-2) and said that "तुमलोगमकानतोडवाददएथेदफरसेबनवारहे हो". Then Complainant Ajay Kurre came from his house and objected him for using filthy language, then the accused abused him in the name of caste and committed marpit.

¶15

Upon such complaint, crime was registered and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶16

In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. 5. Accused/Respondent No.2 has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he has been falsely implicated and examined three witnesses in his defence.

¶17

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence by way of the impugned judgment, has convicted accused/Respondent No.2 under Section 294 IPC and acquitted him from the charges as mentioned in para1.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. The Complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, has clearly stated that the offence has been committed in the name of caste and filthy language has also been used, which implies deliberate humiliation, therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in law and prayed to quash the same and convict the accused/Respondent No.2 under the offence

¶19

¶20

punishable under Sections 323, 506 IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal minutely.

¶22

Ajay Kurre (PW-1) himself has admitted that the Gram Panchayat had issued notice to him for encroachment of the constructed house after which, demolished the house, yet he was continuing the possession and after reconstructing the house, started residing in the same house. Complainant’s main grievance is that 8-10 other persons were also given notice for encroachment but their houses were not demolished and on the date of incident, the accused who is the husband of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat came to his house and objected as to why he has started again construction after the removal of encroachment and demolition of his house, therefore, the Complainant had grudge and enmity against the accused.

¶23

Considering the statements given by the Complainant and the eye witness Dhaniram (PW-3) and BL Tandon (PW-5) regarding the injury caused to the Complainant, there appears some material discrepancies as Dr. Manpreet (PW-4) has not stated any such injury as stated by the eyewitnesses in the medical report (Ex.P-6). So, Dhaniram (PW-3) and BL Tandon (PW-5) are also not fully reliable. Considering the nature of incident, the dispute does not appear to have arisen out of the reason that the Complainant belongs to a particular community and as such any humiliation or filthy language has been used by the accused but it is probable that the accused objected the encroachment, which was already removed by Gram Panchayat and the Complainant again started

¶24

¶25

reconstruction to maintain his encroachment.

¶26

Therefore, looking to the said infirmities, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has considered the entire evidence and properly appreciated the same and after assailing the detailed and cogent reasons, has acquitted accused/Respondent No.2 from the charges punishable under Sections 323, 506 Part-II IPC and 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶27

There is no ground even to take a different view of the evidence on record.

¶28

Accordingly, the finding arrived at by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with and consequently, the Appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶31

Priya

Ajay Kurrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kurrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetam Singh Gabel Vs Chinilal Sahu

Chandrabahadur, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukh Lal Patel ( Wrongly Metioned as Suk Lal Patel and Other in the Impugned Order) Vs Chief Engineer

Kanker Roadways Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Kanker Roadways Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Jhaduram Yadav (Dead ) through Legal Heirs (1) Manharan Vs Mannu Lal Agrawal (Dead) through Legal Heirs (1) Smt Hariyali