Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Tulsi Ram

Chhattisgarh HC21 Aug 2024ACQA/251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal by the State against acquittal in SC/ST Act and IPC cases. Finding no perversity in the trial court's acquittal based on compromise and benefit of doubt, and relying on the limited scope of interference in such appeals, the Court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; IA for condonation of delay allowed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Tulsi Ram — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:31922

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 251 of 2024

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1- Tulsi Ram, S/o Jeevan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Tarighat, P.S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Shakuntala Bai, W/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tarighat, P.S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

22.08.2024

¶16

Heard on IA No. 01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing of this instant appeal. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, I am inclined to allow the same. Delay in filing of the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, IA No. 01/2024 is hereby allowed and is disposed of.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the State the matter is heard finally.

¶18

This appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being

¶19

¶20

aggrieved by the findings and judgment of the acquittal dated 24.04.2023 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 46/2021 by the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocity) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) acquitting the respondents from the offence punishable under Sections 294,506 Part -II, 323/34, 324, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with crime no. 91/2021, registered at Police Station Rajim, district Gariyaband C.G.

¶21

The case in nutshell is that the applicant has a field in Piprahi Khar of village Tarighat, in which the sown paddy was ripe and was ready to be harvested. Accused Tulsi Ram released water from the neighboring farm into the applicant’s farm, due to which his farm got flooded. When the applicant Josvind and his brother Gulshan Markande went to persuade the accused at around 8:30 AM on 30.04.2021, the accused Tulsiram did not agree and started abusing them with caste related and obscene abuses, which they found unpleasant to hear. Shakuntala, wife of the accused Tulsi Ram, picked up the sickle to hit Gulshan Markande, which Gulshan tried to stop, but Shakuntala bit his hand with her teeth. Tulsiram came with a Tangiya saying that he would kill him with all his might and picked it up to hit the applicant, but when he tried to defend himself, the applicant got injured on his left hand finger. Tulsiram got hit on the head by a stone after falling in the scuffle. On the basis of the said report, crime was registered and a first information report was lodged against the accused.

¶22

¶23

Thereafter the police had registered the offence as crime no. 91/2021 against the respondents punishable under the above mentioned sections. The respondents have also lodged a counter FIR against the complainant and his brother in which the complainant and his brother were acquitted on the basis of compromise.

¶24

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and having been so charged the respondent abjured the guilt. They pleaded themselves to be innocent and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶25

After perusal of the record learned trial court as upon consideration of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused respondents and the prosecution in this case found that there is no sufficient ground for considering the charges against the accused, therefore,learned Trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents and therefore, acquitted them from the offence charged.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that learned trial Court has erred by discharging the respondent from the offence charged against him. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidences in its perspective and has succumbed in the surmises of conjectures. That the learned trial court Judge has not justified by discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the

¶27

¶28

prosecution.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the State at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Learned trial court while acquitting the respondents observed that PW-02 while supporting the statement of his brother has stated that on the date of the incident, accused Tulsi Ram had abused and beaten him and his brother for releasing water in the field and accused Shakuntala had also beaten him and his brother. He had intervened in the fight when the accused attacked him with a sharp sickle and he stopped it with his hand but the accused bitted his hand with her teeth. Accused Tulsi had killed his brother with an axe. His brother was injured in the said incident. At the time of the incident, the accused had abused the mother and sister and used caste related abuses. The accused used filthy language regarding her mother and sister and called him caste street cobblers, which sounded very bad. Accused Shakuntala used to threaten those people that they belonged to Satnami community. She also threatened to implicate him in a false case and lose his job. During the cross examination the witness has accepted the suggestion of the defence that the accused had written a report against him in a police station in connection with the fight that took place between the two parties over the water dispute and on the basis of the report written by the accused, a case was filed against him and his brother. On the basis of the report of the accused in Court, due to a mutual agreement between the accused and him and his brother in the case pending the proceedings of the case, have been ended

¶31

¶32

on the basis of compromise and they have been acquitted. He has also accepted the suggestion that on the basis of the agreement reached in the Court, they had agreed among themselves outside the Court to end the proceedings of this Court. Hence, the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294,506 Part -II, 323/34, 324, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶33

Close scrutiny of the evidence placed on record depicts that it is clear from the analysis that the injured and the complainant of the case and his brother have accepted the suggestion of the defence during the cross examination that accused Tulsi Ram had filed a report against him and his brother in police station. In that case, a charge sheet was presented in the court against him and his brother and on the basis of mutual settlement the court has acquitted him and his brother of the accused crime. In the said case the accused and his brother agreed to the terms of the settlement hence the case has ended on the basis of compromise. He has also accepted the suggestion that he and the accused have reached an out of court settlement in this case. In the case going on in which the accused had filed a complaint against him, mutual agreement on the condition of reaching a settlement in the case pending in the court.

¶34

Hence from the above, it is clear that the parties have reached to a settlement of compromise, there seems to be no good ground to

¶35

¶36

elongate the case further.

¶37

Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent from aforesaid offences, I do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal.

¶38

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:-

¶39

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶40

Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed and is

¶41

consequently disposed of .

¶42

sd/-

¶43

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶44

alfiza

State of Chhattisgarh v. Tulsi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Tulsi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Deepak Tractor and Agriculture Vs Puran Lal Janswami

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Homesh Satnami

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anand Kishore Behra

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Atul Bagga

Om Prakash Vs Smt. Saroj Dhruw