Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1

2025:CGHC:56307

The date	The date	The date when the judgment is uploaded on
when the	when the	the website
judgment is	judgment is
reserved	pronounced
		Operative Full
1.9.2025	19-11-2025	- 20-11-2025

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Judgment reserved on : 01-09-2025 Judgment delivered on : 19-11-2025

¶7

CRA No. 702 of 2014

¶8

Mahendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Prasad Gupta, aged about 61 years, R/o Village Amandona, Khorma Road, Pratappur, PS Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (CG)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (CG)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶14

2

¶15

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶16

CAV Judgment

¶17

The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.5.2014 passed by the Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act} in Special S.T.No.113/2013 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 385 of Indian Penal	RI for six months.
Code.
Under Section 3(1)(x) of	RI for six months, pay a fine of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled	Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)	suffer additional RI for one month.
Act, 1989 read with Section 294 of
IPC.

¶19

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.6.2010 at around 7 pm the accused/appellant came to the house of complainant Narendra Pratap Singh, Block Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Pratappur, and demanded Rs.25,000/- as commission saying that renovation of the hospital has been done, the contractors gave him commission and if he does not give commission to him, he would

¶21

3

¶22

publish in the newspaper against him. The accused also threatened him and abused in the name of his caste. At that time, Dr. Vinod Paikra and patient Hari Singh were sitting in the house of the complainant. Hearing the commotion, KK Porte also reached the spot. Based on this complaint dated 9.7.2010 of the complainant, the FIR was registered and matter was taken up for investigation.

¶23

During investigation, spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and necessary articles were seized. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 384 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short “the Act of 1989”) was filed against the accused. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

¶24

In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence.

¶25

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court

¶26

4

¶27

while acquitting him of charge u/s 506 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. Learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR as the incident took place on 29.6.2010 whereas the report was lodged on 9.7.2010 i.e. after 11 days of the incident without any explanation therefor. Before lodging of this FIR, the appellant had made a complaint to the higher authorities against the complainant. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that there are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It has erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 without there being evidence to prove that the appellant abused the complainant with intention to insult or humiliate him on the basis of his caste. The findings recorded by learned trial court are not based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment

¶30

5

¶31

which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 294, 506, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the charge u/s 506 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

¶34

It is clear from the FIR (Ex.P/2) that the date of incident is 29.6.2010 and FIR was lodged by the complainant on 9.7.2010. The complainant filed written report Ex.P/1 on 8.7.2010 before the Station House Officer, Pratappur. No cause of delay was shown by the complainant in the FIR. In the written complaint he explained that due to fear he could not lodge report earlier. However, it is clear that the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge u/s 506 of IPC.

¶35

PW-1 Narendra Pratap Singh, complainant, states in para 3 that on 29.6.2010 while he was taking tea with Dr. Vinod Kumar Paikra at his house and one patient Hari Singh was also sitting there for treatment, the accused/appellant came there and demanded his share in the construction work of the Community Health Center, Pratappur.

¶36

6

¶37

He states that when he told him that it is done with the government fund, so he could not give him commission, he insisted for it and demanded Rs.25,000/-. On his refusal, the accused/appellant got enraged, abused him filthily in the name of his caste and also threatened him of defaming by publishing news in the newspaper. He states that two days thereafter he made a written complaint Ex.P/1 which bears his signature from A to A part. In para 14 of crossexamination he admits that before 8.7.2010 he did not lodge any report. He admits in para 17 that in Ex.D/1 the “MP test card and slide” are written by him and also admits that it is dated 28.6.2010. In para 19 he denies the suggestion of the defence that the accused/appellant made complainant against KK Porte on 29.6.2010 and gave it to him. However, he admits that stamp of Ex.P/6 was purchased on 29.8.2006 by the appellant.

¶38

PW-2 Krishna Kumar Porte, Lab Technician, admits the suggestion of the defence that before the incident the accused/appellant had come for treatment of his daughter to the complainant who advised him for blood test, so the accused came to him and he did her blood test. He states that he does not know whether the accused made a complaint against him to CMO. He admits the suggestion that it was published in the newspaper that the hospital staff demand money. However, he denies the suggestion that out of annoyance, the complainant and himself made a false complaint against the accused.

¶39

7

¶40

PW-3 Mahesh Markam states that on 8.4.2009 while he was conducting a meeting of supervisors, the accused/appellant came to his office and uttered caste related defamatory words against him and thus humiliated which was reported to the police.

¶41

PW-4 Hari Kumar Singh states that the accused/appellant had threatened the complainant that if Rs.25,000/- is not given to him he would publish in the newspaper against him. PW-7 Shailendra Kumar expressed ignorance about the incident and as such he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution where he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution.

¶42

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the witnesses have clearly proved that there were some disputes between the accused and the complainant and the accused had published some news against the complainant and other staff member of the hospital, and 7-8 days thereafter on 8.7.2010 a written complaint was made by the complainant against him. As per the complainant, the cause of delay is threat given by the accused but the learned trial Court after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 506 of IPC. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses do not inspire confidence of the Court. The independent witness PW-7 Shailendra Kumar has not supported the prosecution case at all. The defence of the accused seems to be probable that as he had published some news against the

¶43

8

¶44

complainant and other staff member of the hospital, he is implicated in this crime. Thus, looking to the overall evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Being so, the learned trial Court was not justified in holding him guilty under Sections 294, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. He deserves to be acquitted of these charges by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶45

On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 294, 385 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of all these charges.

¶46

The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.

¶47

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶48

MOHD Digitally signedby MOHD AKHTAR AKHTAR KHANDate: KHAN 2025.11.2013:41:58 +0530

¶49

Khan

¶50

9

Mahendra Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Gupta 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

Sunita Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Kumar Mishra @ Kapil Mishra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ajit Singh Chhabra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar @ Bhogaoo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hiraman Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sati Bai Borkar Vs State Ofchhattisgarh