Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
1 / 10
2026:CGHC:14223
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1231 of 2016
Suresh Kumar Dwivedi S/o I.N. Dwivedi Aged About 52 Years R/o Maharana
Pratap Nagar, Vistar M.I.G- 179, Police Chowki- Rampur, Korba, District-
Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station- Adim Jati
Kalyan Thana, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant :
Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate
For State /Respondent :
Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, PL
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
25/03/2026
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned
judgment dated 20/07/2016 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Korba,
C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No.02/14 whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Digitally
ASHUTOSH signed by
MISHRA ASHUTOSH
MISHRA
2 / 10Conviction Sentence
Under Section 323 of IPC Fine of Rs.1000/- in default of
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for
1 Month.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant K.R. Daharia
belongs to Satnami Caste. He was posted as Upper Division Clerk in the
Middle School, Andhari Kachar. He was late for duty on 21.07.2012.
Female teachers posted at the school, Mrs. Sanjita Shabnam and Sushila
Minj, who were supposed to attend, also did not arrive on time, and their
attendance registers were also questioned by the accused headmaster.
Both teachers arrived at the school, signed their names in the attendance
register, and then left for their classrooms. Participant K.R. Dahriya also
arrived late. Seeing the question mark next to his name in the attendance
register, an argument ensued between the accused headmaster and
complainant K.R. Dahriya. A report was filed against each other by
submitting written applications at the Rampur police post, alleging
physical assault. Both were medically examined by the Rampur police
post, which documented minor injuries. The Rampur police post verified
their complaints, and preventive action was initiated, with Inquiry Cases
No. 196/12 and 197/12 prepared under Sections 107 and 116 (3) of the
CrPC, and presented before the City Magistrate, Korba.
3. On the complainant K.R. Dahariya submitting a complaint in the court
regarding the above incident, on the basis of the memorandum sent by
the court under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., First Information Report No.
51/12 under sections 294, 323, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act
3 / 10
was registered at Police Station Ajak Korba and the case was taken up
for investigation and the true copy of the Diary Sanha of the report
lodged by the complainant K.R. Dahariya and accused Suresh Kumar
Dwivedi at Police Post Rampur by the Investigating Officer, was sent to
the complainant K.R. Dahariya by Police Post Rampur. Copy of the
Rojnamchasanha and a certified copy of the doctor’s medical report were
obtained to send accused Suresh Kumar Dwivedi for examination.
Statements were recorded from complainant K.R. Dahriya and other
witnesses. A caste certificate was seized from complainant K.R. Dahriya,
and a site map of the incident was prepared. The accused was arrested
and an arrest warrant was prepared. After thorough investigation of the
case, on finding the offence of Section 323 of IPC proved against the
accused, an inquiry was prepared and after informing the accused Suresh
Kumar Dwivedi, the case was presented before the court of Smt. Sanjaya
Ratre, Judicial Magistrate, Additional Division, Korba. On which, the
said court framed a charge of Section 323 of IPC against the accused and
recorded the plea of the accused and the statement of K.R. Dahariya,
witness Smt. Sanjida Shabnam, Santdas Diwakar related to the case was
recorded in the court. Thereafter, on the basis of evidence collected in
the case by the court of Smt. Sarita Das, Additional Judicial Magistrate,
Korba, the accused was found to have committed the offence of Section
294, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe
(Atrocity) Act. Since the jurisdiction to try the said offence lies with the
Special Judge, Atrocity, Korba, the case was taken up for hearing.
4. Charges against the accused for the offences under sections 294, 323,
4 / 10
506 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities and Rehabilitation) Act were
framed.
5. Total 10 witnesses have been examined in the court. After the
completion, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and
the statement of the accused was recorded. When the accused entered the
defence, he expressed his wish not to give any defence evidence. The
defence of the accused is that he is innocent, he has been falsely
implicated, earlier the complainant was a Jan Shiksha Kendra Prabandhi,
his post was Upper Class Teacher, since the accused is the Head Teacher
due to this the government made him in-charge of Jan Shiksha Kendra,
due to which the complainant has a grudge against him out of malice.
6. Learned trial Court after examining the material and evidence available
convicted the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
impugned judgment of conviction is wholly unsustainable in law and
on facts, as the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate
the evidence on record in its correct perspective. He would next
contend that the prosecution case suffers from material
contradictions, omissions and lack of corroboration, and the material
witnesses have not supported the case, thereby rendering the
allegations doubtful. He would next contend that the appellant has
been falsely implicated due to prior enmity and personal grudge of
the complainant, which is evident from the surrounding
circumstances, including prior disputes regarding administrative
5 / 10
charge of the school. He would next contend that there is no reliable
or clinching evidence to establish the alleged assault, and the
conviction has been recorded merely on conjectures and surmises. It
is further submitted that the appellant is a government servant and
the continuance of the impugned conviction would cause irreparable
prejudice to his service career and future prospects. Hence, in the
interest of justice, the impugned judgment and sentence deserve to be
set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the
trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.
10. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the act
attributed to the appellant constitutes an offence punishable under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether the same was
committed on account of grave and sudden provocation so as to fall
within the purview of Section 334 IPC.
11. This Court has carefully re-appreciated the entire evidence on record in
light of the aforesaid question. The prosecution case, as it emerges, is
founded upon an incident which admittedly took place within the school
premises during working hours and arose out of an existing dispute
relating to administrative control and functioning of the institution. The
evidence on record, including that of the complainant and other
witnesses, clearly establishes that there was prior discord between the
parties.
6 / 10
12. From the testimonies, it is apparent that the occurrence was not the result
of any premeditated design or prior concert, but was preceded by an
exchange of words and ensued in the course of a sudden altercation.
There is no material on record to indicate that the appellant had come
prepared or with a predetermined intention to voluntarily cause hurt to
the complainant. The incident appears to have occurred spontaneously
during the course of the quarrel.
13. The medical evidence further shows that the injuries sustained are simple
in nature and do not reflect any degree of force or intention suggestive of
a deliberate assault. The nature of injuries lends assurance to the
inference that the act was committed in the heat of moment rather than
as a calculated act.
14. Though the exact words or acts constituting provocation are not
specifically detailed in the evidence, the surrounding circumstances,
including the admitted prior disputes, the immediate escalation of verbal
exchange into physical altercation, and the absence of premeditation,
reasonably indicate that the appellant was deprived of self-control due to
provocation arising from the conduct of the complainant. It is well
settled that provocation may be gathered from the totality of
circumstances and need not always be proved by direct evidence.
15. In contrast, for an offence under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution is
required to establish that the act of causing hurt was done voluntarily
with intention or knowledge. In the present case, the evidence falls short
of establishing such intention in its strict sense. Rather, the material on
7 / 10
record probabilises that the act was committed in the heat of passion
upon sudden provocation.
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the act attributed to the appellant cannot be brought squarely within
the ambit of Section 323 IPC. Instead, it falls within the scope of Section
334 IPC, which contemplates causing hurt on grave and sudden
provocation, thereby mitigating the culpability of the act.
17. Accordingly, the principal question for determination is answered by
holding that the offence made out against the appellant is one punishable
under Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code.
18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2016, passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Korba in Special Sessions Case No.
02/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulation, is hereby modified. The conviction of the appellant
under Section 323 IPC is altered to one under Section 334 IPC.
19. Having altered the conviction, this Court now proceeds to consider the
question of sentence. In this regard, the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 are required to be considered.
20. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as under:
“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on
8 / 10probation of good conduct. – (1) When any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the
court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion
that, having regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the character of
the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of
good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the court
may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into
a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during such period, not
exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the
meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
21. Further, Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provides as
under:
“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt
9 / 10with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall
not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a
conviction of an offence under such law:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to
a person who, after his release under section 4 is
subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”
22. Applying the aforesaid provisions to the present case, this Court finds
that the appellant is a government servant, there is nothing on record to
indicate any criminal antecedents, and the incident arose out of a sudden
quarrel without premeditation. The act of the appellant appears to have
been committed in the heat of moment upon provocation, and thus falls
within the ambit of Section 334 IPC. The offence, as modified, is not of
a grave nature and does not warrant imposition of substantive sentence.
23. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to
extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
to the appellant. Consequently, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is
set aside, and no separate sentence is imposed for the offence under
Section 334 IPC. Instead, the appellant is directed to be released on
probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
with one surety in the like amount, to maintain peace and good
behaviour for a period of one year.
24. In view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it is made
10 / 10
clear that the present conviction shall not entail any disqualification
affecting the service career of the appellant. The fine amount, if already
deposited by the appellant, shall be refunded to him in accordance with
law.
25. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged
subject to furnishing of the aforesaid probation bond.
26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
27. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
ashu
