Dismissed¶38

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Yogeshwar Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC9 Oct 2025ACQA/176/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; ACQA 176/2017; State acquittal appeal dismissed 10.10.2025 by Justice Radhakishan Agrawal; acquittal under Sections 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 upheld; caste-abuse/threat allegation over garbage thrown into drain at Govindpur, PS Kanker; material inconsistencies in complainant PW-1 Mohan Mandavi's statement vs written report Ex.P-1; abusive words not specified in Exs.P-1/P-2; two-views rule in appeal against acquittal; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 relied on; Section 378 CrPC referenced.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; acquittal of the respondents upheld without interference. ¶38

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Yogeshwar Sahu — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-State; acquittal of the respondents upheld without interference.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's judgment acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 294 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is perverse/illegal and liable to be set aside in this acquittal appeal, notwithstanding material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

¶23

Court's answer

The complainant/PW-1's statement suffers material inconsistencies and does not fully corroborate the written report (Ex.P-1); the dispute arose solely over throwing garbage into a public drain, which is trivial and unpremeditated; the specific abusive words allegedly used are not mentioned in reports Exs.P-1 and P-2; therefore it is not proved that the accused persons abused the complainant in the name of caste or intended to insult him.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

PW-2 Manoj Kumar Thakur, PW-4 Geeta Jurri, PW-7 Ram Kumar Thakur, PW-8 Hemnarayan Gajballa and PW-9 Gendlal Kosre did not state anything to suggest that the accused persons used caste-based abusive language or issued any threat to the complainant/PW-1.

¶33

Key takeaways

In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible on the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court has taken the view favouring the accused, the appellate Court cannot reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other possible view into consideration; accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 176 of 2017) by the State of Chhattisgarh against judgment dated 09.01.2017 of the Special Judge (Atrocities), North Bastar, Kanker, acquitting Yogeshwar Sahu and Chandrakiran Sahu of charges under Sections 294 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from an allegation that on 12.06.2015 the respondents abused complainant Mohan Mandavi in the name of caste and threatened his life in a dispute over throwing garbage into a public drain. Held: (i) PW-1's statement contained material inconsistencies and did not fully corroborate the written report (Ex.P-1); the specific abusive words were absent from Exs.P-1 and P-2; the dispute was trivial and unpremeditated; (ii) PW-2, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 said nothing suggesting caste-based abuse or threat; (iii) relying on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, where two views are possible on the prosecution evidence and the trial Court took the view favouring the accused, reversal of the acquittal is not permissible in law. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:50647

¶3

Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: 2025.10.10 17:14:13 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 176 of 2017

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Yogeshwar Sahu, S/o Baliram Sahu, aged about 48 Years, R/o Govindpur, Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Smt. Chandrakiran Sahu, W/o Yogeshwar Sahu, aged about 45 Years, R/o Govindpur, Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant	:	Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel
		Lawyer.
For Respondents	:	Mr. ParagKotecha, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶15

10.10.2025

¶16

This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), North Bastar, Kanker, C.G., in Special Case No. 34/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charge under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶17

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant- Mohan Mandavi lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) stating that accused- Yogeshwar Sahu, who is a teacher by profession, resides in front of his house in village Govindpur. It is alleged that accused- Yogeshwar Sahu habitually throws garbage from his house into the drain passing in front of his house, which often causes blockage of the drain. On 12.06.2015, at about 8:00 am, respondent No. 2 threw garbage from her house into the said drain. When he objected to this act, the accused persons/respondents allegedly started abusing him in the name of caste and threatened him to life. Based on the written report (Ex.P-2), an FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the accused persons. During investigation, caste certificate of complainantMohan Mandavi was seized (Ex.P-3), a spot map was prepared (Ex.P-5) and the accused persons/respondents were taken into custody (Exs. P-14 and P-15 respectively).

¶19

Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.

¶20

The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 15 documents connecting the respondents/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, r espondents/accused persons have examined none but exhibited two documents i.e. Exs.D-1 & D-2.

¶21

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that there is cogent and sufficient evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of PW-1- complainant, to show that on the date of incident, accused persons/respondents abused the complainant in the name of his caste and threatened him to life and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents without properly appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1-complainant and other prosecution witnesses. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the accused persons quarreled with the complainant, abused him in the name of his caste and threatened him to life. Therefore, the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to connect the respondents with the crime in question, which led to their acquittal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶27

¶28

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶29

PW-1 Mohan Mandavi/complainant has stated that on 12.06.2015 at about

¶30

8:00 am, respondent No. 2 brought garbage from her house in a polythene bag and dumped it into the drain passing in front of his house. Thereafter, she again brought another polythene bag filled with garbage and threw it into the same drain, however, this fact is not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by him. He has further stated that when he objected and told respondent No. 2 not to throw garbage into the drain, respondents and their child, started abusing him in the name of caste and also threatened him to life, but this fact has not been specifically mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-1). He has also stated that after this, his son went inside the house and brought an iron rod to beat, however, this fact is also not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-1). This witness was subjected to cross-examination, during which, he admitted that prior to the incident, he had cordial relations with the accused persons and that the dispute arose only because respondent No. 2 had thrown household waste into the public drain. He further admitted that at the time of the incident, he was on the third floor of his house and thereafter came to the porch, which was about 11 feet above ground level, but he did not come down from there. He also admitted that the specific abusive words allegedly used by the accused persons are not mentioned in the reports (Exs. P-1 and P-2). He also admitted that at the time of the incident, both the inner and outer doors of

¶31

¶32

his house were closed and locked, and that the accused persons could not have entered his house even if they had wanted to.

¶33

Thus, from perusal of the statement of the complainant/PW-1 Mohan Mandavi, it is evident that there are material inconsistencies in his statement and his statement does not fully corroborate with the contents of the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by him with respect to the factum of incident. Furthermore, the complainant’s statement indicates that the dispute between the complainant and the accused persons arose solely over the issue of throwing garbage into the public drain, which is trivial in nature. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the incident was premeditated or that any prior plan had been formed by the accused persons. Additionally, the general statements and such abusive words allegedly made by the accused persons are not specifically mentioned in the reports (Exs. P-1 and P-2), as admitted by the complainant. Therefore, it has not been proved that the accused persons abused the complainant in the name of caste or intended to insult him. Furthermore, PW-3 Bhagyavan Nishad, who resides as a tenant in the house of complainant-Mohan Mandavi, has stated that on 12.06.2015, at about 9:00 am, upon hearing abusive voices, he came out of the house and saw the respondents and their son standing outside their house, while complainant-Mohan Mandavi and his wife were standing on the porch and both sides were abusing each other. That apart, PW-2 Manoj Kumar Thakur, PW-4 Geeta Jurri, PW-7 Ram Kumar Thakur, PW-8 Hemnarayan Gajballa and PW-9 Gendlal Kosre did not state anything to suggest that the accused persons used any castebased abusive language or issued threat to complainant/PW-1.

¶34

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the

¶35

¶36

prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that the accused persons/respondents abused the complainant-PW-1 in the name of his caste and threatened him to life and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the said charges leveled against them.

¶37

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favouring the accused, reversal of the findings of acquittal by the Appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶38

Accordingly, this appeal by the State / appellant against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Akhilesh

¶41

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Yogeshwar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Yogeshwar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Atwaro

Gulsher Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sumitra Singh Vs Anul Khan

S.k.jain and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh