Dismissed¶44

Xyz v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Dadsena

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2025ACQA/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; ACQA No. 65 of 2025; Single Bench, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; judgment on board 07/05/2025; acquittal appeal by victim against acquittal under Sections 451, 354, 506-I IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST Act; Scheduled Tribe Girls Ashram, Giroudpuri; outrage of modesty; criminal intimidation; threat of dismissal from job; prior complaint to Collector alleging embezzlement of student stipends; defence witness Sukaluram Kewat DW-1; prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; possible view; no interference; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court; the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one, warranting no interference by this Court. ¶43

Xyz Vs Bhuneshwar Prasad Dadsena — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:21122

NAFR

SHYNA AJAY

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.05.09 13:29:08 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

ACQA No. 65 of 2025

1 - XYZ

(Complainant)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Bhuneshwar Prasad Dadsena S/o Late Ganesh Ram Dadsena, Aged About 70 Years (Accused)

¶13

2 - Marutnandan Patel S/o Chunnilal Patel, Aged About 40 Years Both are R/o Village- Giroudpuri, Police Outpost Giroudpuri, Police Station Gidhauri, Tundra, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) (Accused)

¶14

3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station Gidhauri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) (Prosecution)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶18

No.3/State

¶19

Both Respondents 1 & 2 are present in

¶20

person present before this Court

¶21

¶22

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶23

Judgment on Board

¶24

07/05/2025

¶25

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the victim/appellant against the judgment dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act (in short “the SC/ST Act”), 1989, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG), in Special Criminal Case No.5/203, whereby, the respondents/accused were acquitted from the charges under Sections 451, 354 and 506-I of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

¶26

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.11.2022, at 2:30 p.m., the accused/ respondents persons with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, entered into the Scheduled Tribe Girls’ Ashram and the victim (PW-1) was threatened by them to be dismissed from her job and also criminally intimidated her knowing fully well that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe Category. Thereafter, respondent No.1 with an intention to outrage her modesty, caught hold her of hand and arm. Hence, the aforesaid offence was registered.

¶27

On the basis of the information given by the victim (PW-1), an offence has been registered on 12.11.2022 at Police Chowki,

¶28

¶29

Gidhauri, District Baloda Bazar vide Ex.P/10. The crime detail form was prepared vide Ex.P/3, the spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Caste Certificate (Ex.P/8C) of the victim was obtained vide Ex.P/6. A numbered FIR was registered by Police Station Gidhouri vide Ex.P/9.

¶30

Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Respondent No.1/accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses.

¶31

Respondents/accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It was stated by them that since they had made a complaint against the victim (PW-1), she has concocted a false story in order to save herself. In defence, the respondent(s) examined one witness Sukaluram Kewat (DW-1) and respondent No.2/accused also examined himself as DW-2 in his defence.

¶32

The trial Court after evaluation the evidence, acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence, this Appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. Hence, the Appeal may be allowed.

¶34

On the other hand, the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment. He submits that the complainant, by acting fraudulently, embezzled the money that was meant to be paid as

¶35

¶36

stipends to his daughter, niece and other students, therefore, a complaint was made to the Collector vide Ex.D/6 & D/7. The complainant made a false complaint against the respondents in order to save herself.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case with utmost circumspection.

¶38

Admittedly, in the year 2014, the victim (PW-1) was posted as Superintendent in the Scheduled Tribe Girls Ashram, Giraudpuri, Further, it is also undisputed that the respondents/accused had made a complaint to the Collector, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara vide Ex.D/6 and D/7 to the effect that in the Ashram, though only 22-25 girls are studying but, the victim, who is Superintendent in the said Ashram, in a fraudulent manner, showing excess number of the students, embezzled huge amount of stipends.

¶39

The trial Court taking into consideration the aforesaid defence, minutely examined the evidence adduced by the parties. Furthermore, Bhagwati Ratre (PW-3) and Kholbahrin Sahu (PW4) admitted the fact that the daughter and niece of the respondent/accused were present at the time of enquiry, however, their names were not entered in the record of the said Ashram.

¶40

Furthermore, Sukaluram Kewat (DW-1), who has been listed as a prosecution witness, was not examined by the prosecution but the said witness was examined from the defence side. He

¶41

¶42

categorically deposed that no such incident happened. The respondents/accused made a complaint against the victim (PW1) and in the said complaint, about 27 villagers had put their signatures. From the evidence, it has also been found that during the incident, without a justifiable reason, the husband of the victim (PW-2) was present there, which raises questions and this could be viewed as a suspicious coincidence. Further, this witness stated the place of the incident as courtyard of the Ashram, whereas, the victim has stated a different place of incident in the meeting room of the Superintendent. Moreover, Bhagwati Ratre (PW-3) and Kholbahrin Sahu (PW-4) are the employees of the Ashram, therefore, considering the above backdrop, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved their version and reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused.

¶43

For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and the view taken by it is a possible one, warranting no interference by this Court.

¶44