Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Atul Dubey

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2022CRMP/590/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to appeal the acquittal of an accused person charged with caste-related insults, snatching a camera, and criminal intimidation. The court held that prosecution material was lacking and a view favourable to the accused should prevail.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the respondent was refused and the petition dismissed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Atul Dubey — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 590 of 2021

¶5

State of Chhatisgarh through Police station Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja, (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Atul Dubey S/o late Vijay Nath Dubey, aged about 49 years, R/o Pratappuar Naka, Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja,CG

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For petitioner/State : Ms. Smita Jha, PL For Respondents : None

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶12

05/01/2022

¶13

Heard on admission.

¶14

2 This petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against the judgment impugned dated 06.03.2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No. 90/2017 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B IPC and 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”).

¶15

Facts of the case in short are that on 28.03.2015 at about 2 PM when complainant Sushil Bakhla (PW-7) – a media person by profession, was shooting the photographs of certain

¶16

¶17

illegal construction as was made known to him, the accused/respondent came there and started abusing him in the name of his caste saying as to since when he started working as media person. The accused/respondent is also alleged to have snatched the camera of the complainant and manhandled with him too. On a report being lodged by the complainant, respondent/accused was prosecuted for the said offences, and after completion of investigation, challan was also filed against him under the same sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.

¶18

In order to prove the complicity of the respondent/accused in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Accused himself has also been examined as a defence witness in support of his case.

¶19

After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges levelled against him. Hence this petition by the State seeking leave to appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the Court below has erred in law in disbelieving the statements of the witnesses while acquitting the respondent/accused.

¶21

Heard counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶22

From the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-4) it is apparent that the complainant did not mention in his report (Ex.P-5) that the accused/respondent abused him in the name

¶23

¶24

of his caste within the public view to cause insult or humiliation to him. From the evidence of complainant (PW-7) and Gajanand Sahu (PW-8) it is manifest that the accused/respondent did not know the complainant prior to the incident. Though the complainant allegedly suffered injury on his head, the doctor (PW-3) has categorically stated that neither she did any dressing on the complainant nor did she find any injury on his body.

¶25

Cumulative view of this Court, looking to the evidence on record, is that the Court below has not committed any error in awarding acquittal to the respondent/accused as the material collected by the prosecution is absolutely lacking for proceeding otherwise. Even otherwise, the settled legal position that if two views are decipherable from the evidence on record, the one favouring the accused has to hold the field.

¶26

In aforesaid view of the matter, leave to appeal sought for by the State is hereby refused and the petition is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶29

Jyotishi

State of Chhattisgarh v. Atul Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Atul Dubey

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

Santosh Agrawal Vs Bhaiyalal Banjari

Chitra Prakash Vs Om Prakash

Jaideep Singh Kanda Vs Ashok Dubey

Satish Kumar Jain Vs Mangatram Agrawal

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kanhaiya

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mithun Kumar