Ankit Kumar Dheemar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11511

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 222 of 2025

¶6

 1 - Ankit Kumar Dheemar S/o Panchuram Dheemar Aged About 19 Years R/o Mandal Chowk, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Op Chichola, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

2 - Praveen Kumar Dheemar S/o Panchuram Dheemar Aged About 20 Years R/o Mandal Chowk, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Op Chichola, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

3 - Hukum Sarva S/o Govind Sarva Aged About 22 Years R/o Mandal Chowk, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Op Chichola, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Nokesh Kumar Dheemar S/o Govindram Dheemar Aged About 29 Years R/o Mandal Chowk, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Op Chichola, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S -OP Chichola, Thana Churiya, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate.

¶14

For State/Respondent : Mr. Prabha Sharma, PL.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

2

¶18

07.03.2025.

¶19

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2024, passed in Spl Criminal Case No.03/2024 by the learned Special Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, whereby appellants stand convicted and sentence as under :

¶20

Conviction		Sentence
Under Section 323 (twice) of the IPC.	Fine of Rs.1,000/- In default of month Rigor each appella	(each appellant). payment of fine, 01 ous Imprisonment of nt.
Under Section 427 of the IPC.	Fine of Rs.3,000/- In def fine, 02 Imprisonme	(each appellant) ault of payment of months Rigorous nt of each appellant.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 14.09.2023, during the Govinda festival at Lal Bahadur Nagar, Aishwarya Mandaloi and Gokul Verma were playing DJ song. At about, 9:30 p.m, the accused, Nokesh Dheemar and Ankit Dheemar, approached Aishwarya Mandaloi and Gokul Verma, requesting them to play songs of their choice. When their request was not fulfilled, the appellants/accused started abusing the victim (Aishwarya Mandaloi and Gokul Verma) with obscene languages and also beaten them by means of punches and a metal bracelet. They also damaged the electronics equipments of the victims. Based

¶22

3

¶23

upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants.

¶24

On completion of investigation, challan/charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 294, 323, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶25

Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 14 witnesses. Statement of accused appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶26

After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants herein in the manner as described above.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is perverse and not sustainable in eyes of law. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the charges under Section 323, 427 of the I.P.C. PW-2/Gokul Verma, in his testimony, admitted that about 1500 people gather to watch the Govinda celebration and he also admitted that around 200 people dance together at the DJ Song. Suddenly quarrel took place between the appellants and the victims, which indicates that there was no enmity between the accused persons and victims/complainant. Moreover, there was no intention to damage the articles/electronics equipmens of the

¶28

4

¶29

victims. The story of the prosecution cannot be trusted as the case of the prosecution is entirely based on an after thought. All the independent witnesses, including the seizure witness, have turned hostile and have not support the prosecution story. Learned Counsel further submits that appellant No.4/Nokesh Dheemar is working in the police department and if he is not acquitted, he will be suspended from his job, which will be an irreparable loss for him. Hence, it is prayed that Nokesh Dheemar and the other accused be acquitted from the aforementioned offence.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence adduced by the prosecution has convicted the appellants for the aforementioned offence, in which no interference is called for.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

¶32

With regard to the alleged incident, it has been stated by injured/victim PW-1/Aishwarya Mandaloi in his evidence that on 14.09.2023, he had set-up the DJ at Mandal Chowk, Lal Bahadur Nagar on the occasion of Janmashtami and he was playing DJ song with 4-5 people, Gokul Verma was also with

¶33

5

¶34

him. At that time, appellants/accused asked us to play DJ with their choice and when they refused, appellants started abusing them with filthy languages and assaulted him and Gokul Verma by means of hands and fists. They also damaged the equipment used in the DJ. Due to assault, he and Gokul Verma received injury upon head and hands.

¶35

PW-2/Gokul Verma (injured/victim) and PW-3/Tanuj Sinha, PW4/Neeraj Thakur have also supported the version of PW-1. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence but they stuck to their version in the examination-inchief and nothing could be elicited which makes their testimony doubtful or unreliable. True it is that some contradictions and omissions are there in their statement, but the same are not fatal to the prosecution. Statements of the injured/victims gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-8/Dr. Gagandeep Bhatiya (medical officer).

¶36

Learned trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, particularly the evidence of PW-1/Aishwarya Mandaloi, PW-2/Gokul Verma (injured/victims), PW-8/Dr. Gagandeep Bhatiya (medical officer), arrived at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records.

¶37