Dr.Sunil Kumar Bhandekar vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3678 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                     NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Acquittal Appeal No.135 of 2011


Dr. Sunil Kumar Bhandekar S/o Jivrakhan Lal Bhandekar, R/o Street No. 4,
Pushpak Nagar, Bhilai, Distt.-Durg, C.G.
                                                              ---- Appellant
                                   Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the P.S Station Aa.Ja.Ka Rajnandgaon,
   District Rajnandgaon (CH)

2. Dr RU Khan @ Dr. Rafique Ulla Khan, Son of Ajij Ulla Khan, aged 52
   years, R/o Dhar Road, Manvar, District Dhar (MP), at present R/o Qtr
   No.F-1, Pashu Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Parisar, Anjora Road, Pulgaon,
   District Durg (CG)                                -----Respondents

For Appellant:                          Shri TK Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State:              Shri BP Banjare, PL.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board

14.12.2021

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2011

passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.46/2010

whereby the Appellant has been acquitted from the offence punishable

under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dr. Sunil Kumar

Bhandekar (PW-3) Subject Expert, Animal Husbandry, who was working

under the sub-ordination of accused/Respondent No.2-Dr. Ayub Khan,

Program Coordinator at Agricultural Science Center Rajnandgaon. The

complainant had made a written complaint on 04.05.2009 to SHO,

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 stating that on 31.03.2009 at 3.00 p.m, when the complainant and

other staff members went to the chamber of the accused for redressal of

their official problem, the accused got annoyed and threatened them to

spoil their CRs and also abused the complainant in front of other staff in the

name of his caste by saying "मोची चमार मादरचोद, कुते की पूंछ, फी फोकट मे

नौकरी ममल गई है" and thereby humiliated him. On such complaint, upon enquiry, the police has registered FIR on 01.11.2010 and also seized the

caste certificate of the complainant. After completing the investigation, the

charge sheet was filed.

3. The accused/Respondent No.2 denied the charge and in his

statement, stated that he had made a complaint against Dr. Sunil

Bhandekar (PW-3) to the CG Minority Commission for which, Collector had

conducted an enquiry, therefore, he made a false complaint against him.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many

as 7 witnesses.

5. After completion of trial, the accused was acquitted from the charge

mentioned as above.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment passed

by the Court below is illegal and erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

The trial Court has failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective.

The offence has been committed by the accused in presence of the

witnesses at his office, which is a public place but the trial Court has not

considered it and wrongly acquitted the accused, therefore, it is prayed that

the Appeal be allowed and Respondent No.2 be convicted.

7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.

8. This is an Appeal against the acquittal order and the law regarding

the Acquittal Appeal is by now well settled in the catena of judgments

propounded by the Supreme Court, which is as under:-

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an

accused person and such presumption is strengthened by

the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of

reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal

against acquittal,

(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering

the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers

in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is

generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by

the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an

advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the

trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case,

interference by the appellate court with the judgment of

acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by

the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous

view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand,

they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on

the part of the appellate court in interfering with such

conclusions is fully justified, and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation

and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a

different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is

not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible

view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not

result in the interference by the appellate court in the

judgment of the trial court.

9. In view of the above legal position, if the case in hand is examined,

it is clear that a complaint was made by the Subordinate employee against

his senior and the accused had, prior to the incident, made a complaint

against the complainant Dr Sunil Bhandekar (PW-3) in the CG Minority

Commission for which, enqujiry was being conducted and he had also

admitted in para-10 of his statement that prior to such incident, in the

month of February, the accused had sealed his almirah and before the

present complaint, the complainant had also lodged another complaint at

PS Basantpur against the accused/Appellant. The complainant has stated

in his statement that he has no knowledge that such complaint was filed.

10. There is material contradiction in the written complaint and the

statement of Dr Sunil Bhandekar (PW-3) wherein the complainant called

the accused to his chamber or the complainant along with other staff went

to the chamber for redressal of their grievances. So there is material

contradiction about the manner of dispute in the statement of prosecution

witnesses. Hanumant Singh Tomar (PW-2) Farm Manager deposed in

para-2 of his statement that on the date of incident i.e. 31.03.2021, as it

was the last date of the financial year, therefore, the meeting was going on

and in the said meeting, when they were making their submissions, then

the accused got annoyed and adjourned the meeting and a dispute arose

between him and the complainant and the accused said to the complainant

only that "तुम नेतामगरी करते हो, ग्रुप बना कर चलते हो, तुम को देख लूंगा" and

nothing else happened.

11. As the incident took place on 31.03.2009, but immediately, no FIR was

lodged by the complainant and on his written complaint after about more than

a month, the police registered the FIR after more than 1 year. So there is no

sufficient explanation by the prosecution for such registration of delayed FIR,

which is also fatal and the incident also took place in the chamber of the

accused.

12. Therefore, looking to all these aspects, this Court is of the view that

there are material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses

and also considering the infirmities pointed out above, I am of the opinion that

the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence at length and the

impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, which warrants any

interference.

13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Appeal is liable to be and is

hereby dismissed accordingly.

14. The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya