CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Durgesh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 2 January 2019 · Citation: (2019) 01 CHH CK 0013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 378(3)Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) · Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 — Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2372 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 273 words
1.

Heard on I.A.No.1/2018, application for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

2.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 93 days in filing the petition is condoned.

3.

Also heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.

4.

The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.4.2018, passed by the Special Sessions Judge(Atrocities), District Janjgir Champa (CG) in Special Sessions Trial No. 26/2017, wherein the said Court has acquitted all the respondents of the charges under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989/ Amendment Act, 2015.

5.

To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, but no one deposed before the trial Court that any of the respondent intentionally insulted or intimated the complainant, Deepak Sidar with intent to humiliate him who was a member of Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view or abused him by caste name in any place within public view.

6.

All the witnesses have only deposed that there was some scuffle between the complainant and the respondents.

7.

The trial Court has discussed the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that ingredients of the said offence are not established. After going through the record, this Court has no reason to substitute a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondents should be called for full consideration of this petition/appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for leave to appeal is rejected.

8.

Consequently, Cr.M.P. stands dismissed.