State Of Chhattisgarh vs Atul Dubey
2022 Latest Caselaw 57 Chatt

                                1

                                                            NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                     CRMP No. 590 of 2021
State of Chhatisgarh through Police station Gandhi Nagar,
District Surguja, (CG)
                                                   ---- Petitioner
                            Versus
Atul Dubey S/o late Vijay Nath Dubey, aged about 49
years, R/o Pratappuar Naka, Ambikapur, Police Station
Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja,CG
                                            ---- Respondent



     For petitioner/State   :       Ms. Smita Jha, PL
     For Respondents        :       None



        Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                       Order On Board
05/01/2022


     Heard on admission.

2    This petition has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal against

the judgment impugned dated 06.03.2021 passed by Special

Judge (Atrocities) in Special Sessions (Atrocities) Case No.

90/2017 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge

under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B IPC and 3 (1)(x) of

Scheduled    Caste    and   Scheduled      Tribe   (Prevention   of

Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Special Act").

3.   Facts

of the case in short are that on 28.03.2015 at

about 2 PM when complainant Sushil Bakhla (PW-7) - a media

person by profession, was shooting the photographs of certain

illegal construction as was made known to him, the

accused/respondent came there and started abusing him in

the name of his caste saying as to since when he started

working as media person. The accused/respondent is also

alleged to have snatched the camera of the complainant and

manhandled with him too. On a report being lodged by the

complainant, respondent/accused was prosecuted for the said

offences, and after completion of investigation, challan was

also filed against him under the same sections followed by

framing of charge accordingly.

4. In order to prove the complicity of the

respondent/accused in the crime in question, the prosecution

has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Accused himself has

also been examined as a defence witness in support of his

case.

5. After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the

respondent/accused of all the charges levelled against him.

Hence this petition by the State seeking leave to appeal.

6. Counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the Court

below has erred in law in disbelieving the statements of the

witnesses while acquitting the respondent/accused.

7. Heard counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

8. From the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-4) it is

apparent that the complainant did not mention in his report

(Ex.P-5) that the accused/respondent abused him in the name

of his caste within the public view to cause insult or

humiliation to him. From the evidence of complainant (PW-7)

and Gajanand Sahu (PW-8) it is manifest that the

accused/respondent did not know the complainant prior to the

incident. Though the complainant allegedly suffered injury on

his head, the doctor (PW-3) has categorically stated that

neither she did any dressing on the complainant nor did she

find any injury on his body.

9. Cumulative view of this Court, looking to the evidence on

record, is that the Court below has not committed any error in

awarding acquittal to the respondent/accused as the material

collected by the prosecution is absolutely lacking for

proceeding otherwise. Even otherwise, the settled legal

position that if two views are decipherable from the evidence

on record, the one favouring the accused has to hold the field.

10. In aforesaid view of the matter, leave to appeal sought

for by the State is hereby refused and the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Jyotishi