State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh @ Pawan Sharma

: Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy AG. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 18/07/2025 :

#1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment dated

26.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Special (Atrocities) Case No.03/2017 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE 16:32:11 +0530 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’).

#2. Case of the prosecution is that on 15th August, 2016 at about

5.15 pm at village Sankara the accused was grazing his cattle in the agricultural field owned by the complainants namely, Yogeshwar Tandon (PW-4), Rameshwar Tandon (PW-5) and Dinesh Chaturvedi (PW-7), situated at village Nakti pond because of which the crops sown by the complainant party was destroyed. It was alleged that some land was taken on ‘Adhiya’ from Ashish Dewangan (PW-1). When the complainant party asked the accused to stop grazing his cattle, the accused abused them in filthy language as also in the name of their caste. Therefore, written complaint (Ex.-P/4) was lodged and after enquiry, an FIR was registered on 29.1.2017 at Police Station Berla vide Ex.-P/17. Caste certificates of the complainant party were seized vide Ex.-P/1 to P/3.

#3. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/5. The Patwari has prepared the spot map vide Ex.-P/9. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

#4. In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, he has pleaded false implication and has not adduced any defence evidence. The trial Court after evaluating the 3 evidence acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. Hence this Appeal.

#5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow this Appeal.

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

#7. In the case at hand, the trial Court has recorded the finding of acquittal on the basis of inconsistencies found in the statements of prosecution witnesses and also reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact as to who was the aggressor. The Investigating Officer (PW-8) Ajay Singh has categorically admitted the fact that the accused has also made a complaint against the complainant party with the concerned Police Station and the accused was also referred for medical examination, but no crime has been registered, neither any information has been given about non-cognizable offence. Another Investigating Officer (PW-9) R.S. Dwivedi has admitted the fact that there was political groupism in the village and earlier, a complaint was also registered against the complainant party i.e. Rameshwar Tandon (PW-5) and Dinesh Chaturvedi (PW-7) for offence under Section 430/34 of the IPC.

#8. From the statements of Yogeshwar Tandon (PW-4), Rameshwar Tandon (PW-5) and Dinesh Chaturvedi (PW-7), it appears that on the date of the incident a cow entered the field of these persons. The aforesaid witnesses have admitted the fact that 4 they did not try in any manner to remove/oust the cattle from their field. They have also admitted that they are not sure as to who is the owner of the said cattle, however, they deposed that the accused was standing near the bank of the pond adjacent to the field with a club, when they asked the accused as to why he was grazing his cattle in their field, the accused became annoyed and started abusing them in the filthy language in the name of mother and sister and also in the name of their caste.

#9. (PW-1) Ashish Dewangan has deposed that he has witnessed the aforesaid incident, but the names of the persons were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.-P/4). Even Yogeshwar Tandon (PW-4), and Rameshwar Tandon (PW-5) are silent about the presence of this witness. And as such, there are inconsistencies in the statements of Yogeshwar Tandon (PW-4), Rameshwar Tandon (PW-5) and Dinesh Chaturvedi (PW-7) regarding the presence of PW-1.

#10. (PW-1) Ashish Dewangan has further admitted that the land on which the cattle was allegedly grazing was given on ‘Adhiya’ to the complainant party and the Tehsildar has declared the said land as encroached land. He has further admitted that when the accused came to the field for taking back his cattle, the complainant party were present, however, there was no talk between him and the accused. He is not aware that in the said incident, the complainant party have beaten the accused.

#11. Yogeshwar Tandon (PW-4) has admitted that he and other complainants have also abused the accused. 5

#12. From the aforesaid evidence, it is not clear that the accused was intentionally grazing his cattle in order to destroy the crop/s of the complainant party.

#13. Further, it has also come on record that when the accused reached to the field for taking his cattle back, some altercation took place between them and in the said altercation, uttering of words does not pass the test of obscenity. Moreover, empty threat is not sufficient to convict a person for offence of criminal intimidation.

#14. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, the trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused.

#15. 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] & Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114.]

#16. 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.

#17. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Barve Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)