State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhagirathi Sinha — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhagirathi Sinha — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶27 (judgment para 6)

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (CG) in Special Case No.33/2020 by judgment dated 30.11.2022 suffers from any illegality or impropriety and calls for interference in this appeal under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST Act.

¶¶18 (judgment para 1)

Court's answer

From the complainant's own testimony, the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged because the respondents stopped him from selling liquor leading to an altercation, and at the instance of the Sarpanch whose terms with the respondents were not cordial; the alleged eyewitnesses Ramnarayan Sinha (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar (PW-3) did not support the complainant's version of the incident.

¶¶23 (judgment para 4)

Ratio / Principle

In view of the materials on record, the trial Court did not err in acquitting the respondents, and the acquittal does not call for any interference in appeal.

¶¶26 (judgment para 5)

Key takeaways

The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.ratio¶¶27 (judgment para 6)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA (State appeal under Section 14(A)(1) SC/ST Act) against acquittal of respondents of offences under Sections 341, 294, 323/34 and 506 Part-II IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act (Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, Special Case No.33/2020, judgment dated 30.11.2022). Held, dismissing the appeal: the complainant's own testimony showed the written report (Ex.P-1, dated 06.07.2020, regarding an incident of 05.07.2020) was lodged at the instance of the Sarpanch, whose terms with the respondents were not cordial, after a dispute arising from the respondents stopping him from selling liquor; the alleged eyewitnesses Ramnarayan Sinha (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar (PW-3) did not support the prosecution version. The trial Court therefore did not err in acquitting the respondents, and no interference was called for. Single Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.), judgment on board 11.08.2025.

1

SUNITA GOSWAMI

Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.11 18:11:19 +0530

2025:CGHC:40232

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 117 of 2023

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

1 - Bhagirathi Sinha S/o Late Khanjar Sinha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chhuiha, Police Station Finegshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

2 - Tikendra Kumar Sinha S/o Late Khanjar Sinha Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Chhuiha, Police Station Finegshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

---- Respondent

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents :Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment On Board

11.08.2025

1 . This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.11.2022, passed by the

2

Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (CG) in Special Case No.33/2020, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323/34 and 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2 . According to the prosecution, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the Complainant- Ghanaram on 06.07.2020, alleging inter alia, that on the previous day, i.e. 05.07.2020 around 11-11.30 am, he was going to villageNawadih by his motorcycle and when he reached near the Mina Hardware Shop, he was stopped by the respondents, who abused him in filthy language in public place in the name of his caste and assaulted with hands and fists and threatened to kill upon knowing the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. It is alleged further that when the incident had taken place, it was seen by Narayan Dhruw, Ramnarayan Sinha and one Shiv Kumar, who intercepted the alleged incident.

3 . In order to establish the alleged allegations, the ComplainantGhanaram was examined as PW-1 and it appears from his testimony that he lodged the alleged report against the respondents because he was stopped by them from selling the liquor and, owing to which, some altercation took place between them. It reveals further from his testimony that the alleged report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by him at the instance of the Sarpanch, whose terms were not cordial with the respondents.

4 . Besides, although, it was stated by him that Narayan Dhruw, Ramnarayan Sinha and one Shiv Kumar, have seen the occurrence of the alleged incident, but Ramnarayan Sinha (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar (PW-3), have, however, not supported the alleged version of him, as they have not

3

seen the alleged incident, as was narrated by the Complainant in his alleged report (Ex.P-1).

5 . In view of such circumstances, the trial Court after taking note of those materials, has not erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal.

6 . The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

sunita