Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 998 of 2022 1. Ganesh Prasad Khadiya S/o Bhururam Khadiya, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village Mahapalli, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Sukmati Khadiya W/o Ganesh Prasad Khadiya, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Mahapalli, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Brajesh Khadiya S/o Ganesh Prasad Khadiya, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Mahapalli, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Awdhesh Khadiya S/o Ganesh Prasad Khadiya, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mahapalli, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Thana In Charge Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 17.03.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha Judgment on Board , Chief Justice 1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01/2022, which is an application for suspension of sentence of the fine amount, however, 2 2. 3. with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
Decision
In view of the above, I.A. No. 01/2022 stands disposed of. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under Atrocities Act No. 40/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- Conviction Sentence Default Sentence Section 506 B of the IPC Fine of Rs. 300/- S.I. for 3 days Sections 323/34, 323/34 of Fine of Rs. 200/- S.I. for 2 days and 2 the IPC and 200/- each days for each offence each 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that dispute regarding the wall of the house of the complainant Savitri Yadav is going on with her neighbor accused Ganesh Khadiya and the matter is pending in the Civil court. On 22/12/2018 at 07.30 pm, the applicant and other people were sitting outside the house and warming themselves by the fire. At that time, the neighbor accused Awadhesh Khadiya, Brajesh Khadiya and Ganesh Khadiya and his mother Sukhmati Khadiya came there and started saying that this is their house and they will get it demolished by bringing the Collector. Then, Divya Yadav, daughter of complainant Savitri Yadav told that if it is their house, then take it away. Meanwhile, the accused abused them by using obscene language against their mother and sister and threatened to kill them and accused Awadhesh Khadiya and Ganesh Khadiya started hitting Divya Yadav with a stick. When the complainant Savitri Yadav tried to intervene, the accused 3 pulled her hair and hit her with a stick due to which she got injured on the heel of her left leg and back. Divya Yadav also got injured on her back. When the complainant's brother Santosh came to rescue her, the accused Brajesh Khadiya ran after him with a tangia to kill him and threatened to kill him if he went to the police station. 5. Complainant Savitri Yadav lodged report about the said incident at Police Station, Chakradharnagar against the accused persons, on the basis of which, First Information Report under Crime No. 479/2018 under Sections 294, 506-B, 324, 34 of IPC was registered, Complainant and injured were sent to K.G.Hospital, Raigarh for medical examination. During the course of investigation, spot map of the incident site was prepared, one bamboo stick was seized from accused Awadesh Khadiya, on producing by accused Brajesh Khadiya, one axe was seized. Statements of the complainant, injured and other witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 294, 506-B, 324, 34 of IPC was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh and the case was received to the Court of Special Judge, Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) on transfer vide order dated 05.08.2019 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. 6. When the accused were charged under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34, 323/34 of IPC, they denied the charges and claimed trial. The plea of the accused persons was recorded. While examination and recording statement under Section 281 and 313 of CrPC, the accused stated that they were innocent and that they had been falsely implicated. 4 7. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-10). After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons/appellants from the charge under Section 294 of the IPC, however, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law. The learned trial Court committed gross error by not considering the seizure witnesses as they have not supported the prosecution story. The learned trial Court committed gross by convicting the appellants in spite of the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. Further, the appellants have no criminal antecedents and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that the appellants have already deposited the fine amount as has been sentenced by the learned trial Court. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court be set-aside as it is not sustainable. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that after appreciating evidence on record, learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is sought for. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. Now, the question for consideration is whether the accused/appellants 5 on 22/12/2018 at about 19.30 hrs., in a public place under the area of village Mahapalli, Police Station Chakradharnagar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, used vulgar language against the complainant Savitri Yadav (PW-2) and Divya Yadav (PW-9), which caused annoyance to them and other people who heard it, and caused criminal intimidation by threatening to kill the Savitri Yadav and Divya Yadav with the intention of causing terror? 12. The complainant Savitri Yadav (PW-2) and Divya (PW-9) stated that the accused/appellant No.1 - Ganesh Khadiya is their neighbor. There is a dispute going on with him in the Tehsil Court, Raigarh regarding the house built under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Two years ago on the date of the incident, Savitri Yadav and her daughter Divya were warming themselves by lighting a fire near the door of the house, then all the accused/appellants came to the spot and accused Awadhesh was holding stick and Brijesh was having axe with them and accused Ganesh and Sukamati were having sticks with them and told that the house of the complainant is their house and therefore, accused/appellants asked them to leave from the said house and if they did not leave, they would call the Collector and get the house demolished. Thereafter, they started abusing the complainant and dragged her daughter Divya towards their house. Meanwhile, when brother of the complainant Santosh (PW-4) came to the spot on hearing the sound of the fight and went to free Divya, then the accused Brijesh ran at Santosh to hit him with an axe and said, if he would come they would kill him. Further, Santosh also sustained injuries on his chest, back and heel due to the assault by the accused persons. 6 After some time, Divya was rescued by Santosh and other people of the village. When the accused pulled Divya by her hair and hit her on her back, she sustained injury on her back and the said incident was witnessed by Vidya Charan (PW-3) and Kushu Oraon. Thus, the statement of the complainant was duly corroborated by her brother Santosh (PW-4), Sarve Yadav (PW-6) and they have stated that Divya and Savitri were injured in the incident. 13. Dr. Naveen Agarwal (PW-1) stated that on 22/12/2018, female constable Kasturi Rathia No. 256, Police Station Chakradharnagar, Raigarh brought the injured/complainant Savitri Yadav (PW-2) for examination and upon examining her, the injured informed about the pain in the left side of the chest (5x4 cm) and in the left foot (5x3 cm). As per the MLC report (Ex.P-1), both the injuries appeared to have been caused by hard and blunt objects, which were caused within one to two hours of examination, and the nature of injury was normal. On the same date, when the injured Divya Yadav (PW-9) was brought before him for examination by the same constable, it was found in the examination that the injured informed about pain in an area of 10x6 cm in the left shoulder and in the 3x2 cm area of the index finger of the left hand. Both the injuries appeared to have been caused by hard and rough objects, which were caused within one to two hours of the test, and as per the Medical Examination Report (Ex.P-2) the nature of injuries was normal. 14. Now, whether the accused/appellants voluntarily with a common intention cause hurt to the injured/complainant Savitri Yadav (PW-2) and Divya Yadav (PW-9) on the date and time of the incident? 15. Sub-Inspector B.S. Dahriya (PW-7) has stated that on receipt of case 7 diary of crime number 479/2018 of police station Chakradhar Nagar for investigation, he went to incident spot on 24/12/2018 and prepared a site map Ex.P-4 on the indication of applicant Savitri Yadav. On the same date at 17.30 hrs., when accused Awadhesh Khadia presented a bamboo stick in front of his house in village Mahapalli, it was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-5, which bears the signature of accused Awadhesh. On the same date at 17.40 hrs., when accused Brijesh Khadia presented a sickle in front of his house in village Mahapalli, it was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-6, which bears the signature of accused Brijesh. On the same date, accused Ganesh Khadia, Sukhmati Khadia, Brijesh Khadia and Awadhesh Khadia were arrested in front of witnesses as per arrest sheet Ex.P. 7, 8, 9, 10 on which the signatures of the accused are there. He recorded the statement of complainant Savitri Yadav and witnesses Divya Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Sarve Yadav, Kusu and Vidyadhar Oraon as per their statement. 16. Parmeshwar Sidar (PW-5) has stated that his signature is on seizure memo (Ex.P-5 & 6) but seizure proceedings were not conducted in his presence. Sub-Inspector B.S. Dahriya has admitted in his cross- examination that he did not seal the seized stick and tangi and has denied the statement that he did not conduct any seizure proceedings from Awadhesh and Brijesh, but seizure memo has signatures of the accused. He has not clarified why and when he signed them. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Therefore, it is found that the bamboo stick was seized from accused Awadhesh through seizure 8 memo (Ex.P-5) and the tangi was seized from accused Brijesh through seizure memo (Ex.P-6). 17. From the above evidence, the prosecution has been successful in proving that, the accused/appellants Ganesh Ram Khadiya, Awadhesh Khadiya, Brajesh Khadiya and Sukhmati Khadiya on 22/12/2018 at about 19.30 hrs., in the area of village Mahapalli, police station - Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, caused criminal intimidation to the complainants Savitri Yadav (PW-2) and Divya Yadav (PW-9) by threatening to kill them with the intention of causing them terror, and having formed a common intention to them. Accordingly, the fact of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainants Savitri Yadav (PW- 2) and Divya Yadav (PW-9) by the accused/appellants on the date, time and place of the incident is proved beyond doubt. 18. Hence observing the above stated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 506-B, 323/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to fine which is stated to have been deposited by the appellants. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 19. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellants is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha ) Preeti Chief Justice