Nafr High Court
Case Details
PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.27 10:36:21 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:27782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 292 of 2025 1 - Phool Singh Sidar S/o Chain Singh Sidar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village-Sel, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Vijendra Jaiswal S/o Basant Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Sel, Police Station- Kasdol, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Purushottam Jaiswal S/o Chheduram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village-Sel, Police Station- Kasdol, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Hardayal Jaiswal S/o Punitram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Sel, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S Bhatia & Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 25/06/2025 1. The present Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Special Session Case No.35/2022, whereby the respondent/accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 452 and 506 Part-II of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and Section 3(1)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’). 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2022 at about 11:10 AM, the appellant/complainant (PW-1) lodged an FIR at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara stating that on the said date in the morning at about 6 am, when he was in his house at Village- Sel, the respondent/accused persons, due to old enmity, entered his house and abused him in filthy language in the name of his mother and sister and also threatened to kill him and dragged him out of the house and assaulted him by using hands, fists, and legs. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Chandprakash Sahu (PW-3), Anusuiya Sahu (PW-4) and his wife, Mamta Sidar (PW-2). Based on such information, an offence has been registered vide FIR (Ex-P/1) under Crime No.665/2022. 3. Crime Details form was prepared vide Ex-P/2. Spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex-P/3. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized 3 vide Ex-P/7. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Surendra Divyakar (PW-8) and he found abrasion marks on both elbows (2 x 2 cm) and an abrasion over the left knee (1 x 1 cm). MLC was prepared vide Ex-P/9. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 4. During trial, the respondents/accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The respondents/accused persons, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and have not adduced any defence evidence and exhibited 16 documents (C1 to C16) to show that one day prior to the incident i.e. on 24.08.2022, the respondents/accused also lodged an FIR, which has been registered against the complainant for the offence under Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC vide Ex-C1. 5. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, convicted the respondents/accused persons under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 294 of the IPC, a fine sentence was imposed, however, acquitted them of the charges under Section 452, 506 Part-II of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(v-a) of the Act, 1989. Hence this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, though there is an ample evidence, therefore, he prays to allow the Appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost 4 circumspection. 8. To sustain conviction under Section 452 of the IPC, there must be clear evidence of preparation for causing hurt. The fact that a persons enters another man’s house and commits an assault does not necessarily presuppose such a preparation. For a conviction under Section 452 of the IPC, it is necessary to prove that the dominant intention of accused was to cause hurt while committing house-trespass and the same was committed after making preparation for causing hurt to or for assaulting or for wrongfully restrain some person or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. The fact that the accused trespasses into another’s dwelling house for the purpose of assaulting the complainant is not support the conviction under this Section. Further a person enters another person’s house and commits an assault, does not necessarily presuppose such preparation because it may be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. When there is no such proof on record, conviction under Section 452 of the IPC cannot be sustained and based on the evidence available on the record, the said finding has been recorded by the trial Court. 9. Furthermore, mere empty threat is not sufficient to attract the offence of criminal intimidation. The Act would indicate that there must be an act of threatening another person, of causing any injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act 5 which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant or it must be with the intention to cause him to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of Section 503 of the IPC. In order to prove the offence under Section 506 of the IPC, the threat should be real and not just a mere word. Empty threats do not mean that the case under Section 506 of the IPC is made out. 10.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that during quarrel mere words were uttered by the accused persons. The complainant has not stated in specific terms as to which accused uttered which type of words. In such circumstances, the prosecution fails to prove that there was intention on the part of the respondents/accused in extending a threat to the complainant (PW-1) to attract the offence under Section 506 of the IPC, so this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charge. 11.Further in the FIR (Ex-P/1), it has been alleged that there was no mention that any abuse had been made in the name of caste. In the cross-examination of the complainant, he has admitted the fact that there was previous dispute and particularly in the cross-examination at Para- 17, he admits that in the village street, he was running a business of poultry farm and to remove the said farm, a complaint has been filed 6 before the Tahsildar. The complainant has also denied that the women's group was also caught in his house for selling illicit liquor. 12.Further, the caste certificate has been proved only on the mere statement of the complainant, which in the opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient because the competent authority who has issued the certificate has not been examined. To attract the offence, the prosecution has to prove 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. 13.Admittedly, in the present case, there was previous enmity, but there was no intentional insult or intimidation on the part of the respondent/accused to humiliate the complainant only on the ground that the complainant belongs to the SC/ST category. The Act of 1989 was enacted with a laudable object to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Legislature required intention as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Offences under the Act, 1989, are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. 14.Moreover, it is equally settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See : Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] & V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617]}. 7 15.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Decision
16.In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Priyanka Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge