State Of Chhattisgarh vs Sitaram Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 156 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                               NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRMP No.307 of 2020

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ajak, Ambikapur, District Surguja
 Chhattisgarh                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                       Versus
1. Sitaram Yadav S/o Teju, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Raghupur, Police
   Station Dhourpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
2. Jaiman Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Raghupur,
   Police Station Dhourpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
3. Shrawan Kumar Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village
   Raghupur, Police Station Dhourpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner/State: Shri Gurudev I Sharan, G.A and Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, PL

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board 10.01.2022

1. The State has preferred this application for grant of leave to Appeal under

Section 378(3) Cr.P.C, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 22.04.2019

passed in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No.13/2018 by the Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG),

whereby the Respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable

under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) (two times) of the SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. This Petition is barred by 178 days of limitation. The State has filed an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the said delay.

The reasons as to why the Application seeking leave to Appeal and Criminal

Appeal could not be filed in time are detailed in paragraphs No.2 to 4 of the

application. It is stated in the application that delay was caused due to fulfillment

of departmental formalities and working of the Government machinery. It is

stated further that the State Government is a multi functioning body, hence at

times the fulfillment of departmental formalities takes unexpected long time,

therefore, in some cases, the State is prevented from filing the case within the

prescribed period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate.

3. The State Counsel has placed reliance in the matter of State of Haryana

vs. Chandra Mani reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, wherein it was observed that it

is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the

cases filed in this Court -- be it by private party or the State -- are barred by

limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of

delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits.

4. Karam Sai (PW-3) has deposed that the cattle of the

accused/Respondents grazed his crop, which was informed to him by Kam Sai

(PW-5), then he had gone to the bathan place along with his wife Smt Dhani Bai

(PW-4) to question the accused/Respondents, then some altercation took place

in which, Karam Sai (PW-3) and his wife Smt Dhani Bai (PW-4) were beaten up.

5. During the trial, a compromise has arrived at between the parties and the

Complainant/victim has compounded the offence, therefore, the

accused/Respondents were acquitted from the charges registered under the

Penal Code.

6. This Appeal has been filed for acquitting the accused/Respondents from

the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) (two times) of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. Considering the nature of dispute regarding grazing of crops by the cattle,

there is no evidence that any act was done with such mens rea that the victim

belongs to the community of SC/ST. From the evidence, it is not established that

any intentional insult or intimidation or abuses or the offence was done because

the party belongs to SC/ST community and no necessary ingredients have been

proved by the prosecution.

8. So, after considering the impugned judgment and the statements recorded

by the prosecution and considering the submissions of the parties, this Court

finds that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge

for acquitting the accused/Respondents. Suffice it to say that the learned Trial

Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and

the learned Counsel for the State has failed to dislodge the reasons given by the

learned Trial Judge and convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one

taken by the learned Judge.

9. In view of the above, this Court do not deem it expedient to condone the

delay as the application seeking leave to Appeal so also the Appeal, which is filed

against the impugned judgment and order, lacks merit. Therefore, the application

for condonation of delay deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

10. Consequently, this Cr.M.P fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya