1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 207 of 2012

Judgment Reserved on 21.11.2025

Judgment Delivered on 09.01.2026

1.Jagdish Prasad Sahu, S/o Hiralal Sahu, aged about 28 years

2.Banshi Sahu, S/o Hiralal Sahu, aged about 31 years

Both R/o Village Jewree Thana - Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

--- Appellants

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

--- Respondent

ACQA No. 43 of 2012

1 - Tarun Kumar Rathiya S/o. Late Pritam Lal Rathiya aged about 22

years, Occupation Agricultuist, R/o. Village Jiveri P/S. Punjipathara

Distt Raigarh C.G. ---Appellant

Versus

1.Jagdish Prasad Sahu, S/o. Heeralal Sahu aged about 28 years

2.Banshi Sahu S/o Hiralal Sahu, aged about 31 years

Both R/o Village Jewree Thana - Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

3.State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. A.J.K. Distt. Raigarh C.G.

---- Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate in CRA No.

207/2012 & Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate

in ACQA No. 43/2012

2

For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate

Division Bench : Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey and

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.

CAV Judgment

Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1.CRA No.207/2012 :- This criminal appeal preferred by the

appellants/accused persons herein under Section 374(2) of the

Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 16.02.2012 passed in Special Case

No.66/2009 by the Special Judge (under Atrocities Act) Raigarh,

District Raigarh, C.G., whereby the appellants have been

convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 304 Part-II

read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code (for

short, ‘IPC’)

Rigorous Imprisonment for three

years to each appellant and fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, in default of

payment of fine amount to undergo

additional rigorous imprisonment

for six months to each appellant.

2.ACQA No. 43/2012: — This acquittal appeal has been preferred

under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. by the complainant- Tarun

Kumar Rathiya, challenging the acquittal of the accused persons

of the offences under Section 294 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x)

and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’). The

3

complainant further prays for conviction of the accused persons

for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC

and also seeks imposition of the enhanced sentence as

mandated by law.

3.Since both the above captioned appeals arise out of the same

impugned judgment dated 16.02.2012, they are being heard

together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

4.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.01.2009 at about

5:30 PM, deceased- Pritamlal Rathiya was standing in front of his

house situated at Village Jiveri, Police Station Punjipathara,

District Raigarh. At that time, accused-appellant No. 1, Jagdish

Sahu, along with his brother, accused-appellant No. 2, Banshi

Sahu, arrived on a motorcycle, abused him in filthy language in

the name of his caste, threatened him to life and thereafter both

assaulted him with sticks on his head and back. During the

incident, Bhaina Rautia, Shankar Dansena, Tarun Rathiya, and

Brijlal Rathiya were present at the spot, witnessed the assault,

and attempted to intervene.

5.Thereafter, on the same day at about 9:00 PM, complainant-

Tarun Kumar Rathiya lodged a report at Police Station

Punjipathara, pursuant to which, FIR (Exs. P-15 & P-16) was

registered against the accused persons. The deceased, who

remained under continuous medical treatment, succumbed to his

injuries on 11.08.2009, i.e. approximately seven months after the

4

incident, at K.G. Hospital, Raigarh, due to grievous head injuries

sustained in the assault, resulting in registration of Merg No.

28/2009 vide Ex. P-18 at Police Station AJAK, Raigarh. Summons

were issued vide Ex. P-06 and inquest proceedings were

conducted vide Ex. P-5. The dead body was sent for post-mortem

vide Ex. P-3A, and the post-mortem report was prepared vide Ex.

P-3. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-17. During

investigation, on 22.10.2009, the accused persons were taken

into custody. Memorandum statements of the accused persons,

Jagdish Prasad Sahu and Banshi Sahu, were recorded vide Exs.

P-22 and P-20 respectively, pursuant to which, clubs were seized

from their possession vide Exs. P-23 and P-25. Blood-stained soil

and plain soil were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P-9. The

seized club (danda) was sent for FSL examination vide Ex. P-31,

and as per FSL report Ex. P-33, blood was found on the danda

seized from appellant No. 2, Banshi Sahu. Post-mortem

examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Umashankar

Gupta (PW-2), and the report is marked as Ex. P-4. According to

the doctor, the cause of death could not be ascertained and

viscera was preserved for chemical examination. The mode of

death was coma. Thereafter, statements of witnesses under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

6.After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

against the accused persons before the concerned trial Court.

The accused persons abjured their guilt, prayed for trial, and

5

entered into defence stating that they have not committed the

alleged offences.

7.In order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as

many as 17 witnesses and brought on record 33 documents vide

Ex.P/01 to P/33 whereas, the appellants in their defence have

examined 2 witnesses i.e. DW-1 st atement of Ravishankar Sao

and DW-2 Statement of Hemram Patel and have exhibited 2

documents vide Ex.D/01 & D/02. Statements of the accused

persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which,

they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false

implication.

8.The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and

appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment,

converted the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the IPC to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC,

and acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Section

294 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeals have been

filed by the accused persons and the complainant- Tarun Kumar

Rathiya, respectively.

9.CRA No. 207 of 2012 – Learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the

trial Court, is wholly unsustainable in law. It is argued that the

6

appellants have been erroneously convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the

IPC and improperly sentenced to undergo three years'

imprisonment. From the entire evidence adduced by the

prosecution, it is established that although the appellants are

alleged to have assaulted the deceased- Pritam Lal Rathiya, with

a danda on his head and abused him in filthy language in the

name of his caste, but the deceased had sustained only one

lacerated wound on his head and a single contusion on his back.

He was treated at the Primary Health Centre and thereafter

returned home. It is submitted that after about seven months, due

to certain complications, he again visited the hospital on

11.08.2009, where he was admitted and died on the same day.

The doctor, who examined him, categorically stated that the injury

sustained by the deceased was simple in nature and that the

cause of death could not be ascertained. In these circumstances,

the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-II read

with Section 34 of the IPC is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

It is further submitted that the appellants have been falsely

implicated in the case, and that appellant No. 2, Banshi Sahu,

being a government servant, has been roped in due to previous

animosity, and any confirmation of the conviction would seriously

affect his service career.

10. ACQA No. 43/2012 : Learned counsel for the

appellant/complainant submits that the deceased was standing

7

outside his house when the accused–appellants assaulted him

with a danda and used filthy, caste-based language, referring to

him as “sala Adivasi Kanwar,” thereby humiliating him in public. It

is further argued that the incident arose out of a previous dispute

during an election and that the accused persons caused injuries

to vital parts of the deceased’s body, particularly his head.

Although the injuries did not appear serious on the date of the

incident, i.e., 05.01.2009, but complications arising from these

injuries led to the deceased being admitted to the hospital after

seven months, where he ultimately succumbed. In these

circumstances, the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC is

clearly made out against the accused persons. It is further

contended that, based on the eye-witness accounts, the accused

persons are also liable to be convicted under Sections 3(1)(x) and

3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, as the assault was committed on the

ground that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The

evidence, therefore, establishes the commission of offences

under the Special Act, for which the accused persons are liable to

be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law, which the

trial Court has failed to do. Learned counsel for the complainant

further submits that the seriousness of the injuries, which

ultimately caused the death of the deceased, cannot be

overlooked merely because there was no fracture or because the

death occurred seven months after the incident; the death was a

8

direct consequence of the complications arising from the injuries

inflicted during the assault.

11. Learned State counsel submits that the accused persons

are liable to be convicted and sentenced appropriately. On

perusal of the judgment, it appears that the trial Court rightly

convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under

Section 304 Part-II/34 of the IPC; however, the trial Court has

taken a lenient view while awarding the sentence. It is therefore

submitted that the appellants are required to be properly

sentenced in accordance with law.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered

their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the

records with utmost circumspection. It is admitted that the incident

took place on 05.01.2009 at about 5:30 p.m., when the deceased

was standing outside the complainant’s house. At that time, the

accused persons arrived there, abused the deceased, and

assaulted him. This is evident from the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses. From a perusal of the evidence adduced

by the prosecution, it is clear that the incident of abuse and

assault indeed occurred. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-5

Tarun Kumar Rathiya, the son of the deceased, reveals that the

accused persons abused the deceased, saying “sale Kanwar

bhosdike, bada neta bana firta hai,” and assaulted him with a

danda. Appellant No. 1- Jagdish Prasad Sahu, struck the

deceased on the head, while Appellant No. 2, Banshi Sahu,

9

assaulted him on the back and foot. Although this witness was

cross-examined, nothing substantial was elicited by the defence

to discredit his version, and the facts regarding the abuse and

assault remain unshaken.

13.PW-6 Brijlal, also a son of the deceased, has similarly stated that

on the day of the incident he saw accused Jagdish Prasad Sahu,

armed with a stick, and accused Banshi Sahu assaulting his

father by hitting him on the head and by kicking and beating him.

He stated that the incident occurred due to a caste-related

dispute. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he

witnessed the incident from his doorway, about 80 steps away,

during the evening in winter, and that the village, being

surrounded by mountains, becomes dark quickly. He further

stated that he had a prior dispute with accused Banshi Sahu

regarding the Indira Awas Yojana. He confirmed poor visibility and

acknowledged that he first mentioned the green stick and the

kicking in court, but denied having given a false statement due to

the prior dispute.

14.Likewise, PW-7 Padumlal stated that while returning from the

house of accused Jagdish Sahu with a companion in the evening,

just before sunset, he heard a loud banging sound. He saw the

accused persons assaulting Pritamlal with kicks and sticks.

According to him, Jagdish Sahu was assaulting the deceased

with a stick, while Banshi Sahu was kicking him. After the assault,

10

both accused persons returned to their respective homes.

Thereafter, he, along with Manbodh, lifted Pritamlal and took him

to his house. Further, PW-4 Manbodh also corroborated the

incident. He stated that while he was going towards the colony in

the evening, he saw Pritamlal lying near the Bajrang Bali temple

with a head injury from which blood was oozing. At that time, PW-

5 Tarun Rathiya asked him for help in lifting the injured Pritamlal.

He assisted in lifting him and took him to his house. He further

stated that Pritamlal was conscious and speaking at that time.

Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that on the date of the

incident, both accused persons assaulted the deceased Pritamlal.

15. Besides above, from the perusal of the evidence of Dr. S.N.

Keshari (PW-15), who initially treated the deceased, it is clear that

during the MLC examination, no bone injuries were found on the

body of the deceased. One lacerated wound measuring 5.5 × 2.5

cm was noted on the scalp, and a contusion measuring 2.5 × 6

cm was found on the backside of the deceased. This witness has

categorically stated that no fractures were detected on the body

of the deceased. The other Doctor (PW-1 Dr. T.K. Tondar), who

treated the deceased, stated that the deceased had been

admitted to the hospital for old injuries sustained to his head.

However, no details regarding those injuries have been provided.

Furthermore, PW-2 Dr. Umashankar Gupta conducted the post-

mortem examination of the deceased, who died on 11.08.2009. In

the post-mortem and autopsy report (Ex.P/4) prepared by him, he

11

stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained in this

case, and therefore he preserved the viscera for further

examination.

16. Furthermore, from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-

17 Sitaram Singh), it appears that the incident took place on

05.01.2009, and the FIR was lodged on the same date by the

deceased himself, wherein he categorically named the assailants

and described their acts. From the testimony of the Investigating

Officer, it further appears that the deceased sustained only two

injuries, and he died after seven months of the incident, i.e., on

11.08.2009, during the subsequent course of treatment. This

witness has categorically stated that no information was ever

provided to him regarding the deceased having gone into a coma

or any such medical complication. Initially, offences under

Sections 294 and 324 IPC were registered against the accused

persons; however, upon the death of the deceased, offences

under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, were

added. He further stated that the incident occurred due to an

election-related dispute.

17. That apart, the accused persons were examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C., during which they stated that they had been falsely

implicated in the case. According to them, the deceased was

suffering from mirgi (epilepsy) and was drunk on the date and

time of the incident, and he fell on the road, thereby sustaining

12

injuries. They contended that due to political rivalry involving

between one Uchitram and the son of the deceased- Tarun

Rathiya, they were falsely implicated, as there was a dispute

regarding the construction of an Indira Awas. The defence also

examined two witnesses, DW-1 Ravinshankar Sao and DW-2

Hemram Patel. DW-2 Hemral Patel categorically stated that the

deceased was suffering from mirgi and was found lying in a

drunken condition. DW-1 Ravinshankar Sao stated that he had no

information regarding the incident. He further stated that the

accused persons were not in the village at the relevant time, as

they were participating in a pran-pratishtha ceremony in a temple,

and therefore they had not committed any offence.

18. Perusal of the above evidence would show that the deceased,

at the time of the incident on 05.01.2009, himself lodged the FIR

on the same date, naming the accused persons as the assailants.

He categorically described the manner in which the incident

occurred. Therefore, the FIR, being in the nature of a dying

declaration, cannot be discarded. Likewise, the other witnesses

who witnessed the incident, namely PW-4 Manbodh, PW-5 Tarun,

PW-6 Brijlal and PW-7 Padumal, have also categorically stated

about the occurrence and have confirmed that the deceased

sustained injuries during the said incident. However, from the

post-mortem report (Ex.P-3), it is not apparent that the death of

the deceased was homicidal in nature. The doctor conducting the

post-mortem has stated that no definite cause of death could be

13

ascertained. It was also not stated by him that the death was

homicidal. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the

conclusion that the deceased died a homicidal death, particularly

considering that he was stated to be in a drunken condition as per

the evidence of the doctor. The doctor (PW-15) has also stated

that no bone injuries were found in the body of the deceased.

19. When the death of the deceased itself is not shown to be

homicidal in nature, there is no question of convicting the accused

persons for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the

IPC. From the medical evidence as well as the testimonies of the

witnesses, it appears that the deceased sustained only one

lacerated wound on the head and one contusion on the back,

both of which were simple in nature. The incident occurred on

05.01.2009, and after receiving primary treatment, the deceased

returned home. Thereafter, nearly seven months later, he

developed certain complications for which he was admitted to the

hospital, where he ultimately died. Since the doctor failed to

provide any definite cause of death and did not opine that the

death was homicidal in nature, the most that can be said is that

the injuries sustained by the deceased would attract the offence

under Section 323 IPC and not Section 304 Part II IPC.

Accordingly, neither the offence under Section 302/34 IPC nor

that under Section 304-II/34 IPC is made out against the accused

persons, particularly in view of the fact that the medical evidence

does not establish the death to be homicidal. Therefore, no higher

14

offence can be said to be made out, and the accused persons are

liable only for conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34

IPC and they are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment

which they have already undergone. However, the fine amount

imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. The

conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is,

accordingly, set aside.

20. The next issue for consideration is whether the trial Court rightly

acquitted the accused persons of the offences under Section 294

IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. On

examining the evidence, this Court finds no material to show that

the assault was committed solely because the deceased

belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The incident appears to have

arisen out of an election-related dispute, and no compelling

evidence establishes a caste-based motive. Further, the evidence

regarding the alleged abuses under Section 294 IPC is

inconsistent, as the witnesses differ on the specific words uttered,

and these do not find mention in the FIR. There is also no

evidence to show that the alleged abuses were made in a public

place or that they caused annoyance to the public, both of which

are essential ingredients of Section 294 IPC. Accordingly, the

acquittal of the accused persons of the offences under Section

294 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, is

justified and needs no interference by this Court.

15

21. We now consider the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellants regarding the conviction of Appellant

No. 2, who is a government employee and whose conviction may

adversely affect his service career. From the evidence on record,

the offence does not appear to be one involving moral turpitude. It

is further argued that since the evidence against Appellant No. 2

is weak and the essential ingredients of Section 304-II/34 IPC are

not established, he may be acquitted; or, in the alternative,

appropriate observations may be made to ensure that his service

prospects are not prejudicially affected.

22. We have considered this aspect. On perusal of the evidence, it

does not appear that any act involving moral turpitude was

committed by the appellant. In Naresh Markam and others v.

State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 8 of 2018, decided on

16.05.2018, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically

held that in petty offences, where the conduct does not amount to

moral turpitude, the conviction of the accused would not debar

him from government service. Following this principle, we hold

that the conviction of Appellant No. 2- Banshi Sahu for the offence

under Section 323/34 IPC, for which he has already undergone

the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment, shall not

adversely affect his service. Since the appellants have already

undergone the sentence of one year, they are not required to

surrender.

16

23.In the result, CRA No. 207 of 2012 filed by the accused persons

is allowed in part, whereas ACQA No. 43 of 2012 filed by the

complainant, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.

24.The appellants/accused persons are reported to be on bail.

Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of CR.P.C., the

appellants/accused persons are directed to forthwith furnish

personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of

sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before

the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of

six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of

Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of

leave, the aforesaid appellants/accused persons on receipt of

notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

25. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with

a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information

and necessary compliance.

Sd/- sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge Judge

Vishakha