2025:CGHC:49217 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 464 of 2008 Judgment Reserved on : 09.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 25.09.2025  Smt. Anita Singh Thakur, wife of Shri Surendra Singh Thakur, aged about 42 years, resident of Civil Lines, Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station –

Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh Kela, P.L.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (C A V Judgment)

1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Case No. 75/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 3 (1) (x) of S.I. for 06 months with fine of S.C./S.T. Act, Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional S.I. for 15 days.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Tikam Ram who was member of Scheduled Caste posted as Peon in Pre-Secondary School, Pipariya, on 23.11.2006, made a written report at police station Khairagarh to the effect that prior to two years of this report, the accused/appellant who was posted as Teacher in the school, humiliated the complainant saying that she would not drink tea from a cobbler (Mochi). It was also alleged in the report that on 23.11.2006 also when complainant was preparing tea in afternoon, the accused/appellant came there on account of some and the Principal and other teacher sitting in the hall asked the appellant to have tea, at that time also, the applicant uttering filthy words said that she does not drink tea from cobbler, whereupon the applicant was made understand by other employees of the school but she remained uttering the caste remark, due to which the complainant was humiliated in front of the students. On the basis of said report of the complainant, a crime was registered against the accused/appellant on 23.11.2006 at 06.30 PM. Thereafter, spot map was prepared by the investigating officer on 24.11.2006 and on the very day, caste certificate of the complainant was seized in which his caste was mentioned as ‘Satnami’.

3. During investigation, statement of the complainant and witnesses were recorded and after completing usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and 3 (1)(x) of the Act, 1989 was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, 1989, to which she abjured her guilt and prayed for trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in law as well as on facts in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section (3)(1)(x) of the Act. There is major contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value no offence much less offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out against the appellant. The learned Special Judge while delivering the impugned ju