4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 3?<<OF 2007 Appellant ^msm ^^ ^^<0 Versus Santosh Das S/o B.S.Das Aged about 27 years, R/o- Hanuman Mandir Parisar, Type-2 Bacheli, Distt.- D.B. Dantewada (C.G.) Respondent State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Bacheli, Distt.- D.B. Dantewada (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374f2l COF THE CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ^^^^ ^ HI&H COURT QF CRHATHSGARH AT Single Bench s Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prltinker Diwaker CrimlnQl No. 395 of APPELLANT RESPONDENT Santosh Das, son of B.S. Das Versvs State of Chhattlsgwh Shri Sanjoy .Agrawo.l, counsei for the appe.iiant. Shri Vaibhov A. &overdhan, Ponei Lowyer for the State. CRIMIN^L APPEAt UNDEft SECTION 3T4 (2) OF TH€CGDE OF (28.04.2010) Present oppeal arises out of the Impugned JudQment and order dctted 11.^2007 .by Speciai Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduied Tribes (Preventlon of Atrocities) Act, DontewQdQ in Sessions Trial No. 189/2006 coriyicting the accused/appeliQnt for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indlai Penal Code ond sentencing him to poy fine of Rs. 1,000, in defaujt of pGyment of flne to undergo simple imprlsonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in br-ief is tho.t ors 30.12.2005 a written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by Nirmal Khunte (PW-1) aljeging in it that he Is worklng as Junior Telecom Officer at Teiephone Exchang®Bacheli and when 'he was performing the government duty ond wo's aeceptlng the o.ppilcGtions from various persons for Issuing Slm Card of the cei! phone, the accused/appelSant insisted him to accept his Gppiication out of turn and when the same was refused, he was abused and threatened by the Gccused/appeilant and thereafter he was brutoily assaulted by hlm with the help of hocky stick. Bcsed .-'^^. (^ on this written repori-, F.I.R. (Ex.P-3) was registered agajnst the accused/appeliant on the same do.y i.e. 30.12.2005. After 'investigatjon, the police hos filed th®chGllan against the accused/appeiiant for the offences under Sections 353, 448, 294, 506 (part II) and 323 of the Indian Pena! Code and Section 3 (i)(x) of the Schsduied CQSte <S Scheduied Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. So QS to hoid to accused/appeHQnt guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 02 witnesses in support of its co.se. Statement of the CK:cused/oppellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of CrimJna! Procedure in which he denied the chorges Isvelled ogdnst him and pjeaded hjs innocence and fdse imp!JCQtion in the case. 4. By the Impugned judgment, the ceurt beiow has acquitted the accused/appe!!ant in reiation to the other offences but has convicted him for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to pay fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fin@ to undergo slmp!® imprisonment for one month. Hence thls appeo.1. 5. Counsel for the Gppsliant submJts that the Ingredlents of Seetion 353 of the Ind.ian Penal Code are not attrGcted In the present case because no government work whatsoe^r has been affected on account of olieged act of the Qccused/appeilant. He further submits that the so!e eye witness Voshwsnt Kumar | Dewangon (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case ond has been declargd hostiie. Hg further submits that os per the i] statement of Njrmd Khunte (PW-1) himse!f incident had taken pjace when he was going back to his house. ^ ^•^' '^ K i^^ji '^^.^^•' ^/ 6. On the other hand counsgi for the State supportjng the impugned judgment submits tho.t the impugned Judgment is m csccopdance with }aw ond there Is no infirmity in the scme. 7. I have heord counsel for the parties and perused the materla! Gvaiiable on record. 8. Compiainant Nirmd Khunte (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incidgnt when he was working o.s Jun.ior Telecom Officer, the accused/appeliantcame there along with the form to get the registrcition of Sim Card of celS phone but he hos not brought a!j the relevant documents and when the complainant has asked him to bring dj the documents, cert'dn documents were shown by hlm but they were not as per the ruies and at that point of time the accus€d/appe!!a(rit started arguing with him, he has abused him and then he went back. H© has stated that after aboutlO - 15 minutes he o.gain came bo.ck and after closing the work when the comploinant was about to 90 his home, accused/oppeltant assouited him with the heip of hockey stick, as a resuit of which he sustdned jnjurles on his head. He has admittsd the fGct that Incident ho.d taken plo.ee outside the office bulldjng. The so!e eye witness of the incident yashwant Kumar Dewangcn (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case and has been deciared hostije. 9. AAinute scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses mokes it c!ear that ingredients of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted in the present ccs©.Complainant has admitted the fact th.at the incident had taken place ofter the offlce hours when he was about to go to his re-sidence and further that the incident had taken place outslde the offlce .^s*" ^'^- .^-^. •''f ;>.•' l.';^" .M .':.. "<4" ^'^ buiiding. In these circumstances, the accused/appe!!ant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 10. Consequentiy, the appeai is diowed. Impugned judgment do.ted 114.2007 is hereby set aside. Appeilant is acquitted of the ch.orge ievejled against him. The appellont is reported to b© on bait. Bai! bond furnished by him stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge