2025:CGHC:61291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.706 of 2010

1 - Neeraj Rai S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o North Jhagrakhand, Ward No.4, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya C.G.

2 - Sushil @ Lala (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated

09-10-2025.

Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Arakshi Kendra Station Jhagrakhand, District Koriya C.G.

Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms.

Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board Digitally signed 16/12/2025 by R NIRALA

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Koriya (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Session Trial No.16/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 & 506 (1) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months, RI for 6 months and RI for 1 year, respectively, with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.12.06 complainant Jai Hind (P.W.-6) lodged a written report mentioning therein that on intervening night of 11/12.12.2006, when he was sleeping in the house at about 12.00 to 1.00 A.M. somebody knocked the door of his house, thereafter he opened the door, he saw that the present appellants were standing on the door with club and rod and assaulted him and also abused him by his caste, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. The ingredients of Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also missing and the caste certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Alternatively, She submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2010, the appellants remained in jail for more than 20 days, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 has died, whereas the appellant No.1 is presently aged about 40 years and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in CRA No.737/2008 in between Sitaram and others vs State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 24.03.2025 and CRA No.70/2016 in between Girjashanker Giri vs State of Chhattisgarh, decided on

18.11.2025.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for.

Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2 has died.

7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 452, 323 & 506 (1) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellants. After appreciation of o