Digitally signed by 2025:CGHC:16996 SISTA SISTA SOMAYAJULU AFR SOMAYAJULU Date:

2025.04.16

14:24:32 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 669 of 2022 Premprasad Gupta, S/o Jugal Kishore Gupta, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Kidda, P.S. Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Ms. Vidhi Mathani, Advocates.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate and Mr.

Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

11/04/2025

1. The appellant herein stands convicted for offences under Sections 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’) by the Special Judge under the Act of 1989, Raigarh in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No.67/2019 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2-4-2022, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay a fine ₹

of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for ten days; rigorous imprisonment for three months; and rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay a fine ₹

of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for ten days, respectively, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12-9-2019 at 9 p.m. the appellant abused victim/complainant Chhabilal (PW-1) in filthy language and threatened his wife Neerabai Rathiya (PW-4) to commit her murder and also caused grievous hurt to complainant Chhabilal (PW-1) knowing fully well that they are members of Scheduled Tribe and thereby committed the offence. Chhabilal (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Surendra Kumar Paikra (PW-6) vide Ex.P-9 and he was advised for x-ray. He was subjected to x-ray and as per the x-ray report, he suffered fracture of lower third of left ulna bone, but the radiologist who prepared the x-ray of the complainant was not examined and on the basis of the report submitted by Dr. Surendra Kumar Paikra (PW-6), the appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 holding that fracture of lower third of left ulna bone was found.

3. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Radiologist / Lab Technician, who conducted x-ray of the victim / complainant Chhabilal (PW-1), has not been examined and merely on the basis of the x-ray plate which does not bear name & address of victim Chhabilal (PW-1), report has been prepared which has been acted upon. He would further submit that the Radiologist / the person who conducted x-ray ought to have been examined to hold that the victim / complainant has suffered fracture within the meaning of Section 320 Seventhly of the IPC so as to convict the appellant for offence under Section 325 of the IPC and as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal under Sections 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and

3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989.

4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would oppose the appeal and support the judgment of the trial Court and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has rightly been convicted for the offences under Sections 325 & 506 Part-I of the IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well.

6. The question is, whether the appellant has rightly been convicted for offence under Section 325 of the IPC i.e. punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Grievous hurt has been defined in