Smt. Jacquiline Thomas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:13726 NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 213 of 2015

¶5

Ku. Nishi Esthar Herenz D/o Late Shri Nobel Herenz Aged About 40 Years Caste Munda Schedule Tribes R/o Indira Colony Near Water Tank Tarbahar, P.S. Tarbahar, Place And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶6

--- Applicant(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer Police Station Torwa Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Smt. Jacquiline Thomas W/o Lenjus Thomas Aged About 39 Years Caste Anglo Indian R/o Construction Colony Railway Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Non-Applicant

¶11

CRA No. 825 of 2015

¶12

Smt. Jacquiline Thomas W/o Lenjus Thomas Aged About 39 Years R/o Construction Colony Railway, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Appellant(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer, Police Station Ajak Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶16

---Respondent

¶17

In ACQA No. 213/2015 For Appellant For State	Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
For Respondent No. 2	Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Tolani, on behalf of Mr. Vinod Ku. Pandey, Advocates.
In CRA No. 825 of 2015
For Appellant	: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate assisted

¶18

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.03.25 10:57:45 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

For State

¶21

by Mr. Hemant Tolani, on behalf of Mr. Vinod Ku. Pandey, Advocates. : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate.

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

23.03.2026

¶25

1. Since the Acquittal Appeal <led on behalf of the appellant/complainant and Criminal Appeal <led by the appellant/accused arise out of same impugned judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶26

2. Acquittal Appeal has been <led on behalf of the complainant, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 10.07.2015 in Special Session Trial No. 24/2014 passed by the learned Special Judge Bilaspur whereby the sole accused namely Smt. Jaklin Thomas has been acquitted from the charges of Section 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and convicted under Section 294 of IPC with Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act 1989 (as amended 2014).

¶27

3. Criminal Appeal has been <led by the appellant-accused, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of very same judgment dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Court (Atrocities) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in Special Case No. 24/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶28

Convicted under Sentenced to Sections

¶29

3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste R.I. for 6 months with <ne of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of

¶30

3

¶31

and Schedule Tribe payment of <ne, additional R.I. for 2 months. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act 294 of Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs. 300/- in case of default of payment of <ne amount further R.I. for 10 days.

¶32

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Nishi Esther Herenj, <led a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, stating that she was working as Senior P.A. (Tele-3) in South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, while the accused was working as P.A. (Tele-2); on 29.07.2013 at about 3:00 PM after lunch, when the complainant returned from the common hall to her o.ce chamber, the accused, who was already present, directed her to sit outside, and upon her refusal on the ground that there was no order from any higher authority, the accused allegedly pushed her, attempted to force her out of the room, threatened to get her killed if she continued to sit inside, and abused her with <lthy and caste-based derogatory words, due to which she could not perform her o.cial duties; the complainant reported the incident to the o.ce in-charge/Secretary but no action was taken and instead she was relieved from duty, as a result of which she fell unconscious and was admitted to the Railway Hospital where she was informed to have suFered a minor heart attack due to severe mental shock; she thereafter submitted written complaints to Police Station Torwa on 29.07.2013, to Ajak Police Station, Bilaspur on 30.07.2013, and to the

¶33

4

¶34

Secretary, General Manager Secretariat, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur on 08.08.2013, and upon failure of any action, <led the present complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, pursuant to whose direction an FIR was registered at Police Station Torwa under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 509, 353 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was <led for oFences under Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, during which the complainant’s original caste certi<cate was seized vide Exhibits P-1 and P-2, spot map was prepared vide Exhibit P-3, the accused was arrested vide Exhibit P-4, statements of witnesses were recorded, and thereafter the charge-sheet was presented before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities).

¶35

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant Ku. Nishi Esthar Herenz submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, to the extent it acquits the accused from the charges under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC, is contrary to law and evidence available on record, and the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the testimony of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses; however, it is further submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant and the accused have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a compromise voluntarily, without any coercion or undue inHuence, and in view of such settlement, the appellant does not wish to press the present

¶36

5

¶37

acquittal appeal and the same may kindly be dismissed as not pressed. It is also submitted that the appellant has no objection if the connected criminal appeal preferred by the accused is decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, in the interest of justice.

¶38

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur, is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record, and the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; it is contended that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, no independent witness has supported the prosecution case, and the essential ingredients of the alleged oFences are not made out. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise voluntarily, without any coercion, duress or undue inHuence, and a.davits to this eFect have been <led before this Hon’ble Court; therefore, it is prayed that in view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges in the interest of justice. In support of his submission learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. Vs. K. Lalitha

¶39

6

¶40

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844, Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand and Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

¶41

7. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/accused and the complainant and submits that the oFences involved in the present case, particularly under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are serious in nature and have a social impact, therefore, the same are not compoundable in law; it is further submitted that merely because the parties have entered into a compromise, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be set aside as a matter of course, especially when the oFence pertains to caste-based insult in a place within public view; it is contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence while convicting the appellant; hence, the compromise entered into between the parties should not be accepted to the extent of setting aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act, and the appeal preferred by the accused deserves to be dismissed.

¶42

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as learned State counsel at length and perused the entire record of the case and the documents placed on record, including the compromise application and a.davits <led in support thereof.

¶43

9. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arose out of a workplace disagreement on 29.07.2013 at

¶44

7

¶45

the o.ce of South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, when the complainant returned to her o.ce chamber after lunch and was asked by the appellant/accused to sit outside; upon her refusal, a verbal altercation ensued between them in connection with sitting arrangements and authority within the o.ce, which subsequently escalated into exchange of abuses and alleged use of force, forming the basis of the present criminal proceedings. Learned trial Court, after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has acquitted the appellant/accused of the charges under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC on the ground that the essential ingredients of the said oFences were not established, whereas the conviction under Section 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been recorded primarily on the basis of the testimony of the complainant, which was found to be reliable and duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses; it further appears that the alleged incident arose out of a workplace dispute between the parties and there is no previous criminal antecedent attributed to the appellant/accused, and now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the matter any further.

¶46

10. Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with <ne,

¶47

8

¶48

or with both.

¶49

11. Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that: Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable under the said provision.

¶50

12. The TI, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.), submitted an inquiry report (Ex.D/1) dated 08.10.2013 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, in compliance with the Court’s endorsement, stating that upon receipt of the complaint <led by the complainant, Nishi Esther Herenj, against the accused Smt. Jacquiline Thomas, an on-site inquiry was conducted and statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, it was found that both the complainant and the accused were working in the o.ce of the General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, in the same telecommunication section and shared the same o.ce room, with the accused being senior and the complainant junior. According to the inquiry, the dispute arose on 29.07.2013 when the accused questioned the complainant regarding non-performance of assigned work, leading to an exchange of words between them; however, none of the independent witnesses corroborated the allegations of physical assault, use of abusive or obscene language, or caste-based insults, and witnesses such as Elizabeth Toppo and Tina Shrivastava stated that they were informed of the incident only through a mobile phone

¶51

9

¶52

call by the complainant and had neither seen nor heard the alleged occurrence. It is stated that the complainant returned at about 3:00 PM to collect her ti.n and, upon opening the door, peeped inside the room, where it is alleged that the accused J.K. Thomas was abusing her with <lthy and caste-based remarks, which the witness claims to have heard from outside the room; however, it is noted that Tele Room No. 515 is a con<dential room and no employee or outsider is permitted to enter without the permission of the Secretary or Superintendent; adjoining rooms No. 508 and 509 and the hall in front were occupied by staF of the General Manager’s Secretariat, yet no independent witness has supported having heard any such abuses, and the only witnesses, namely Ravishankar and Eliza Toppo, are stated to be close associates of the complainant.

¶53

13. Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court <nds that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the solitary testimony of the complainant (PW-1), whereas the material witnesses, namely PW-2 Elizabeth Toppo, PW-3 Tina Shrivastava and PW-8, have not supported the prosecution version in material particulars and have categorically stated that they neither witnessed the incident nor heard the alleged caste-based abuses directly, and were only informed through the complainant; even the witness Ravishankar (PW-7), who claims to have heard something from outside, admits that he was not present inside the room and his testimony is not of such a nature as to conclusively establish the use of caste-based abusive language in a place within public view; further,

¶54

10

¶55

the medical evidence adduced through the doctor does not corroborate the allegation of any serious physical or mental injury arising out of the incident; thus, the prosecution evidence suFers from lack of independent corroboration and material inconsistencies.

¶56

14. A crucial ingredient for constituting an oFence under Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act is that the alleged intentional insult or intimidation must take place in a place “within public view.” The expression “public view” has been judicially interpreted to mean that the act must be visible and perceptible to persons other than the complainant and the accused, and mere occurrence in a place which is accessible to the public is not su.cient unless it is shown that members of the public were actually present and had witnessed or heard the incident.

¶57

15. In the present case, a careful analysis of the place of occurrence further reveals that the alleged incident took place inside Tele Room No. 515, which, as per the prosecution itself, is a con<dential and restricted room not accessible to the general public without permission; although adjoining rooms and a hall were occupied by staF, none of the independent persons present therein have supported the prosecution version of hearing any caste-based abusive language; in such circumstances, the essential ingredient of the oFence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, namely that the alleged insult must occur “in any place within public view,” is not satisfactorily established, as mere possibility of access does not equate to actual public view, and there is no convincing evidence that the alleged

¶58

11

¶59

words were heard or seen by members of the public.

¶60

16. It is also well settled that when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence available on record, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted, particularly in an appeal against acquittal; in the present case, the learned trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, has acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 353 and 506 IPC, holding that the essential ingredients thereof were not proved, and such a view cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Court; therefore, the Acquittal Appeal preferred by the complainant does not merit acceptance and is liable to be dismissed .

¶61

17. So far as the conviction under Section 294 IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, this Court <nds that the learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant while ignoring the material de<ciencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly the absence of independent witnesses, contradictions in testimonies, and failure to establish the ingredient of “public view”; the genesis of the dispute appears to be a sudden workplace altercation between colleagues without any clear intention to commit the alleged oFences, and the evidence on record does not inspire such con<dence as to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

¶62

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 825/2015) <led by the appellant/accused deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated

¶63

12

¶64

10.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 24/2014, to the extent it convicts the appellant under Section 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, is set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges by extending the bene<t of doubt.

¶65

19. Consequently, the Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 213/2015) is dismissed , and the Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 825/2015) is allowed . The appellant/accused is on bail; her bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶68

Jyoti

Smt. Jacquiline Thomas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jacquiline Thomas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanat Kumar Pobiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harbin Tirkey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kanhai Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Abha Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nishi Esthar Herenz Vs State Of Chhattisgarh