Partly allowed

Ishwar Shrivas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2025CRA/262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against convictions under Sections 294, 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act for abusing a complainant by caste name and causing injury. Court acquitted under 294 and 3(1)(x) for lack of requisite intention, affirmed Section 324 conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone with enhanced fine payable as compensation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ishwar Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

CRA No.262 of 2016

NAFR

2025:CGHC:31660

Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JHA JHA Date:2025.07.10 17:26:21 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 262 of 2016

¶8

Ishwar Shrivas S/o Siya Ram Shrivas Aged About 24 Years R/o Village College Road Akaltara, Police Staton Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶9

Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station A J A K Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶12

Respondent

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶16

09/07/2025

¶17

Heard.

¶18

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/02/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 78/2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 324 & 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

¶19

¶20

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶21

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1989’), however, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324 of the IPC and RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, with default stipulation.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01/02/2015 ComplainantAastik Banjare lodged a report at Police Station Akaltara to the extent that on the said day at about 10:50 O’clock, when he along with Dilip Khande went to the Salon shop of the appellant and asked the father of the appellant that who is free, then the appellant abused him by saying “ ” सालेचमारदेखतानहींहै . When, the Complainant asked him as to why he is talking like that, then, the appellant further abused with derogatory language and with an intention to kill him, he assaulted him by a scissor, due to which, the Complainant sustained injury over neck. According to the complainant, Vishnu Bareth, Janakdas Manikpuri and the people present in the saloon witnessed the incident.

¶23

Based on the above report, zero number FIR was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken into investigation. The complainant was sent to Community Health Center, Akaltara for medical examination. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the articles were seized. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶24

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellant under

¶25

¶26

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶27

Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶28

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11/02/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶29

Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence that the appellant had abused the Complainant on his caste, as such, the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 do not attribute the offence. He would further submit that even by assuming for the sake of argument that during the alleged incident, the Complainant was abused by taking name of his caste that by itself does not make out an offence Section 3(1)(x) of the "SC& ST (POA) Act since the intention should be to insult or intimidate a person he being a member of Scheduled Caste(SC) or Scheduled Tribe(ST). To support his contention, the decision of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vrs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2021) 81 OCR (SC) 241 has been relied.

¶30

Ms. Isha Jajodia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶31

¶32

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, defines an offense as intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent to humiliate them in any place within public view. This means the act must be deliberate, the intention must be to cause humiliation, and it must occur where others can see it.

¶35

PW1- Asthik Banjare in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 01/12/2015, he along with his brother went to the Salon shop of the appellant and asked that who ‘Thakur’ is free, then the appellant abused him by saying “सालेचमारदेखतानहींहै ” When, the Complainant asked him as to why he saying ‘चमार’ to him that, then, the appellant further abused with derogatory language and with an intention to kill him, he assaulted him by a scissor, due to which, he sustained injury over neck. He also stated that at that time Vishnu Bareth, Gyanidas and other people were present in the saloon. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the appellant was well knowing that he is an Advocate. This witness has never stated any where that the appellant was knowing fully well that he belongs to schedule caste.

¶36

PW2- Vishnu Kumar Kars in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of incident, he was at the Saloon of the appellant for having the shave. At that time, the Complainant came and asked who is free then

¶37

¶38

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶39

the appellant replied that he is not free ‘चमार’. Subsequently, they quarreled with each other and thereafter, this witness came from the shop. When he again went inside the shop, he saw that there was blood oozing out from the neck of the Complainant. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has never seen any Marpeet. He admitted that he did not know how the Complainant sustained the injury. He also admitted that when he returned in the shop, the Complainant was carrying the shaving blade in his hand and blood was oozing out from his neck.

¶40

PW3- Jhanikdas Manikpur in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of incident, he had gone for having shave at the saloon of the appellant. He was sitting outside as there was other members too. At that time, there was argument going on between the appellant and the Complainant. When, the Complainant came out of the shop, he had seen the blood on the body of the Complainant. This witness in crossexamination has denied that the appellant had abused the complainant on his caste. He also denied that he had not seen the appellant assaulted the Complainant by the blade. He admitted that the person himself cannot shave with the shaving blade of a Barber.

¶41

PW9- Dilip Khande in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of incident, he along with the Complainant had gone to the shop of the Appellant. He deposed that after five minutes, when the Complainant came out of the shop, there was blood over his neck. Subsequently, the complainant went to the hospital. In para 2 of his statement he categorically admitted that the appellant was not abusing

¶42

¶43

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶44

the complainant. He also admitted that he did not see that the appellant had inflicted injury over the Complainant.

¶45

Further, the FIR (Ex.P/1) clearly shows that the Complainant has no where stated that the appellant was knowing him that he belongs to Schedule Caste.

¶46

On perusal of the statement of the witness, it is apparent that the Complainant and PW2 has only stated that the Appellant had abused him by using the word ‘चमार’. Except them, none of the witnesses have stated that the appellant had abused the Complainant on his caste with an intention to insult or intimidating him.

¶47

Intention is a sine qua non for the alleged offence to have been committed. In other words, unless the required intention is found to exist with "a purpose to insult and intimidate the victim the latter being a member of SC or ST, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (POA) Act can be said to have been made out.

¶48

From the record, it appears that there appeared sudden dispute between the appellant and the Complainant and the appellant suddenly out of anger abused the Complainant under the circumstances arose in spur of movement. Though, the appellant took the name of the complainant caste while abusing the latter, only by taking the caste name or utterances of abuse by taking the name of one's caste would not be an offence under the Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (POA) Act unless the intention is to insult, intimidate the person being a SC or ST. If the law

¶49

¶50

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶51

laid down by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) is read, appreciated and understood in its proper perspective and applied to case at hand, there appears no such intention on the part of the appellant for being in dominant position as a man of forward class to insult and intimidate the complainant being a member of SC and ST.

¶52

Further, from the conduct of the appellant it is apparent that it was pure and simple an abused by the appellant under the peculiar facts and circumstances and a sudden outburst and on the spur of the moment without carrying the requisite intention to humiliate the informant so to say. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 294 & Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 is not proved against the appellant.

¶53

So far as, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 is concerned, from the statement of the Dr. Mahendra Soni (PW5), who has medically examined the complainant, it is evident there was a perpendicular wound on the right side of neck, below the jaw, size 10 cm X 1.4 cm. The injury was serious in nature. His report is Ex.P/7. However, in crossexamination, the Doctor has admitted that the injury sustained by the Complainant may be sustained during shaving due to irresponsible work. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC is affirmed.

¶54

So far as sentence part under Section 324 of the IPC is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 09 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 24 years;

¶55

¶56

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶57

he has no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478 wherein considering the fact that fine amount has been deposited and paid to the victim as also the long passage of time, the accused was sentenced to the period already undergone, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount of Rs. 500/imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

¶58

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 294 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges. However, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine sentence of Rs. 500/- imposed by the trial Court under Section 324 of the IPC is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. If the appellant fails to deposit the said fine amount, he shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. It is directed that the fine amount shall be payable to the complainant as compensation.

¶59

¶60

CRA No.262 of 2016

¶61

The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶62

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶65

Rahul/Gowri

Ishwar Shrivas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ishwar Shrivas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anshul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satpal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yalamanchili Kamala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another