2024:CGHC:31332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 266 of 2022 Suresh Patel S/o Shri Dirba Ram Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Bhiravahi Police Outstation- Kachche, Thana-

Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondent ______________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL _______________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board

20/08/2024

1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act}, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.15/2020, whereby the appellant convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13/01/2020 at about 11 am in the forest of village Bhiravahi, victim was there with her father in law for cutting the woods and the appellant/accused was also on that spot and asked for the Tangiya (axe) for himself and after that he started harassing her. The victim called her father in law for helping, when he intervened then after some scuffle, accused flew from spot.

3. The matter was reported on the same day, mulahija was done, najari naksha was prepared, caste certificate of the victim was seized and statement was recorded and charge- sheet was filed. Looking to the material available in the charge-sheet, the trial Court framed the charges under Section 354 of IPC & Section 3(1)(b) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant.

4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant.

5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this appeal. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the appellant took tangiya for cutting woods from the victim and the dispute only arose due to the said petty object as she demanded it for her own use over this, the dispute has taken place and then the prosecutrix implicated the appellant in the present false and fabricates case. He further contended that from perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, nowhere allegation sustains as ingredients of Section 354 of IPC is attracted and the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 3(1)(b) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, conviction against the appellant may be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Court below.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection.

9. Applicant Smt. Kamini Rawte (PW-1) has stated in her evidence recorded before the trial Court that on the date of incident, sh