Anjani Kumar Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11559

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 169 of 2024

¶6

1 - Anjani Kumar Shriwas S/o Shri Bihari Lal Shriwas Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Bundela, Police Station - Shivarinaryan, Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Shivarinarayan, Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

07/03/2025

¶15

With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally.

¶16

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.10.2023, passed in

¶17

2

¶18

Special Sessions Case No. 84/2022 by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G.,whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

¶19

follows:-

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 294 of IPC	Fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of
	fine additional R.I. for 25 days.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant is the Sarpanch of Rohidas Gram Panchayat Bundela, a resolution was passed in the Gram Panchayat to collect pairavat in pairavat gothan. The complainant came to know that the Dy. Sarpanch and accused Anjani Kumar Shrivas was refusing to collect pairavat then the complainant along with her husband and other panch members went to look after the matter. The accused was standing there and other labourers were sitting. The complainant asked them who stopped the work then the accused abused the victim in filthy language and abused her casteism.

¶22

Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 6 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment

¶24

3

¶25

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in para 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further contended that on the basis of the complaint and other material collected by the investigating agency on the face of the material, no prima facie offence is constituted and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 323 of IPC is missing and therefore the impugned Judgment and conviction is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses the findings recorded by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Janjgir, District-JanjgirChampa, C.G. holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 294 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal.

¶28

P.W.01/ victim has deposed in her statement that she and the accused live in the same village. On 22.12.2021 she was getting the work of straw (परा ै ) collection done by the labours and she was in her home. Antram called her and informed her that the accused have stopped the collection work then she along with her husband and other panch members went to the place and asked the

¶29

4

¶30

accused why he has stopped the work. The accused started abusing the victim/complainant by using obscene words at public place and abused her casteism.

¶31

P.W.-02 has deposed that around 1 year ago Sarpanch asked her to keep the straw (परा ै ) in Govt. Gauthan. When she was keeping the straw (परा ै ) then the accused came and asked her to stop the work. After some time Sarpanch came to the place of incident. She was standing at some distance therefore she could not hear the conversation between the accused and the Sarpanch.

¶32

P.W.-03 has deposed in his statement that on 21.12.2023 he went to the Gauthan and there was a dispute between the accused and the Sarpanch. The accused was abusing the Sarpanch on the basis of her caste.

¶33

From perusal of the statement of the witnesses it is crystal clear that there was no previous enmity by and between the parties.

¶34

Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the dispute arose between the parties over keeping the straw (परा ै ) in Gauthan, thereafter accused used obscene act at public place against the victim and has caused annoyance to the victim as well as others.Considering the statements of the witnesses, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the Special Judge [SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act] Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) convicting the accused/appellant under Section 294 IPC

¶35

5

¶36

are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and is hereby maintained.

¶37

Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶38

The present appellant is Sub-Sarpanch of Village Bundela, P.S.Sheorinarayan, Civil and Revenue District- Janjgir-Chmpa. Since the appellant being convicted for an offence which does not involve moral turpitude, therefore, it is made clear that the conviction of the appellant will not affect his career in any manner.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

Madhurima

Anjani Kumar Shriwas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Kumar Shriwas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc (Juvenile in Conflict With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samayjan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Kumar Dheemar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Santra Bai Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh