Surajpur, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 406 of 2023 Hemant Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Shivnarayan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Parri, Mahadevpara, Police Station- Sruajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.06.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Case & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 41/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed fine upon him of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine 01 months of rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case is that complainant, Tuleshwar Singh, is a ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.12 11:00:26 +0530 2 member of a Scheduled Tribe. On 16.08.2019, at around 11:30 AM, complainant, Tuleshwar Singh, went for plantation work at the behest of Nangod, Lalman, Samaylal, and employment assistant Rajneesh Pandey. During this time, the accused arrived at the spot with a tractor and driver and began verbally abusing the complainant and the laborers with obscene and caste-based slurs. He angrily questioned why they were planting trees on his land without permission and threatened, saying, “I will kill you and bury you right here.” When employment assistant Rajneesh Pandey tried to stop the accused from using abusive language and explained that the plantation work was being done on government land under the employment guarantee scheme on the instructions of the village head (Sarpanch), the accused hurled obscene abuses involving his mother and sister. He then attacked Rajneesh Pandey with a shovel and also physically assaulted him with punches. Regarding the incident, the complainant Tuleshwar Singh filed a written report at Surajpur Police Station. Based on this, a case was registered against the accused under Crime No. 280/2019, Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The accused was charged under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After being told and explained the charges, he denied the charges and 3 claimed trial. In the trial, he pleaded not guilty but did not produce any defence evidence. 4. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2022 is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore it is liable to be set- aside. He submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in convicting the appellant under Section 323 of IPC, though on the basis of same piece of evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant from the offence under Sections 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of S.C. & S.T. Act. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is nothing material to hold the conviction of appellant under Section 323 of IPC. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the injured received minor injury, which may be caused by other means. He also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and without any reliable material, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of IPC only on the basis of 4 presumption and assumption. He submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradiction and omission in the case diary statement and court deposition of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be made basis for conviction of appellant. As such, criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed/set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is sought for. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the order of the trial Court, it transpires that the appellant is alleged to have caused injuries to Rajnish Kumar Pandey (PW-6), by striking him with a spade on the day of the incident. The incident reportedly took place at Gram Panchayat Pari, where a tree plantation program was about to commence with a ground-breaking ceremony. During this time, the appellant is said to have gotten into a dispute and assaulted Rajnish Kumar Pandey, (PW-6). Rajnish Kumar Pandey, was working as a Rozgar Sahayak (Employment Assistant) at Gram Panchayat Pari. Tuleshwar Singh (PW-1), Lalman Rajwade (PW-2), and Samaylal (PW-3) had gone to the location to carry out the tree 5 plantation work. These witnesses stated that they were present as laborers for the task. The prosecution’s examination of witnesses and the documents presented reveal that the incident occurred just as the tree plantation work was about to begin with a coconut- breaking ceremony. The appellant arrived at the site in a tractor and began verbally abusing the laborers engaged in the plantation work. 9. According to the statement of Tuleshwar Singh (PW-1), the appellant came to the site where the work was in progress and ordered them to stop working. When this witness explained that they were acting on instructions from the Sarpanch and the Secretary, Rajnish Kumar Pandey, who was also present, advised the accused to speak with the Sarpanch, as the work was being done on government land. However, the accused / appellant snatched a spade from Tuleshwar Singh and struck Rajnish Kumar Pandey with it. Rajnish managed to block one blow with his hand, but the second struck his shoulder, causing injury. The appellant then began kicking and pushing them. Tuleshwar Singh (PW-1), filed a written complaint about the incident at Police Station Surajpur, which was registered as a First Information Report (FIR) by Surendra Singh (PW-7). 10. Regarding the assault, Rajnish Kumar Pandey corroborated the complainant’s account and testified that while he was instructing laborers on the plantation work, the accused arrived and began 6 abusing them. The accused also threatened to bury them in the ground. Despite being asked to stop, he snatched a spade from Tuleshwar Singh and struck Rajnish with it. Rajnish blocked the blow with his right hand, resulting in injuries to his finger and shoulder. The accused then assaulted him further with fists and kicks. After the incident, Rajnish informed the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch, Nita Singh, and later went to the police station to file a report. Lalman Rajwade (PW-2), and Samaylal (PW-3), supported the statements of complainant Tuleshwar Singh (PW-1), and the injured Rajnish Kumar Pandey(PW-6). 11. Dr. Balkrishna Tiwari (PW-5), confirmed the injuries sustained by the victim. Given the evidence, it cannot be said that PW-6 Rajnish Pandey falsely implicated the accused due to alleged enmity. Consequently, it is established that on the date of the incident, during the tree plantation work, the accused / appellant assaulted victim Rajnish Kumar Pandey, with a spade, causing injuries to his right-hand fingers and shoulder. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of injured Rajnish Kumar Pandey (PW-6), evidence of Dr.Balkrishna Tiwari (PW-5) and evidence of other witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 7 13. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted on 16.02.2023 stands vacated. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek