1 2025:CGHC:9196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 191 of 2012 1 - Asha Singh W/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o M.I.G. 277, Devrikhurd Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Rukhmini W/o Balaram Das, Aged About 45 Years, 3 - Farida Begam W/o Moyunus, Aged About 55 Years, 4 - Rukhsana Begam W/o Mohammad Rashid Khan, Aged About 22 Years, 5 - Bebi Nurjahan D/o Mohammad Yunus, Aged About 19 Years, 6 - Mohammad Rasid @ Moh Akhtar S/o Moh Yunus, Aged About 22 Years, 7 - Moh Yusuf @ Sahd@ Saiyad S/o Moh Hunus, Aged About 30 Years, Respondents No. 2 to 7 Are R/o Atal Awas Deori Khurd, Thana, Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brajendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 to 7 : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.24 10:55:36 +0530 2 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 21/02/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant/mother of the deceased- Rahul Singh under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 13/01/2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.95/2008, whereby, the respondents No.2 to 7 have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 147, 302 and 302/149 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 07/05/2008, at about 5 PM, one Rahul Singh had parked his bicycle near a Chat Thela, at that particular time, the respondent No.6- Mohammad Rasid came in his auto rickshaw and since the bicycle was parked on the road, therefore, he got annoyed and owing to which, an altercation took place with said Rahul Singh and he abused him while using filthy words and thereafter, other accused persons gathered there and assaulted him with sticks, hands and fists. The alleged incident was reported by the mother of the deceased, namely, Asha Singh (PW-6) before the Police Station Torwa vide Ex.D-4 and on the basis of its inquiry, an FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered on 09/05/2008 against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506 and 323 of IPC and the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. D-5) was also lodged by the mother of the deceased to this effect on the same day. It is alleged further that the deceased has sustained injuries on account of the alleged 3 incident and therefore, he was admitted to District Hospital, Bilaspur on 07/05/2008 and looking to his serious condition, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter he was again referred to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur on 09/05/2008 and during the course of his treatment, he died on 11/05/2008 and accordingly, the information was given by one Diwakar Yadav, OT Attendant of the said hospital to the Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur, based upon which, an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was also added and the respondents were arrested. Based upon the disclosure statement (Ex. P-2) of respondent No.6- Mohammad Rasid, a stick was recovered from him, vide seizure memo Ex.P-3 and on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P-4) of respondent No.7- Moh Yusuf @ Sahd, a stick was recovered from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur against the respondents in connection with Crime No.139/2008 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294, 323, 506 (Part-II) and 302 of IPC. The matter was, thereafter, committed to the learned Sessions Judge for trial, who in turn, has framed the charges against the respondents under Sections 147, 302 and 302/149 of IPC and, the charges, so framed, were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and has exhibited 24 documents, while 02 witnesses were examined by the respondents in their defence. 4 4) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the respondents are the authors of the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant/mother of the deceased. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the findings of the Court below holding that the respondents are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the material available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. It is contended further that though, there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses, who are the relatives of the deceased, but merely on the basis of minor discrepancies in their statements, the trial Court ought not to have discarded their versions, while acquitting the respondents. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 INSC 97 . 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State, has supported the contention of the appellant, while counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 7/accused has supported 5 the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident occurred on 07/05/2008 at about 5:00 to 5:30 PM, a report (Ex.D-4) was lodged by the mother of the deceased, namely, Asha Singh, wherein it has been alleged that she received the information from a boy that her son was being beaten by Shahid and his friends and upon knowing the said fact, she reached the spot and has seen that her son has received injuries on his eyes, neck and other parts of his body. It appears further that a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.D-5) was lodged by her on 09/05/2008 to this effect and based upon the inquiry conducted on her said information (Ex.D-4), an First Information Report (Ex.P-11) was lodged on 09/05/2008 against the respondents. The deceased, who sustained injuries, was referred to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on 11/05/2008 during the course of his treatment at Ambedkar Medical Hospital, Raipur. Inquest (Ex.P-23) of the dead body was made and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-5) who vide his report (Ex.P-6) opined the cause of death to be cardio - respiratory failure owing to head injuries and its complications. 9) In order to establish the factum of the alleged incident, the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Asha Singh was examined as PW-6 and it was stated by her that on 07/05/2008 in the evening around 5:00 6 to 5:30 PM when she was doing some household activities at home, one Anjum Parveen rushed to her and informed that her son -Rahul, was being beaten by 5-6 persons and, deposed further that after receiving the said information, she immediately alongwith her son-in- law, namely, Rajkumar, elder son Amit Singh, younger daughter Arti Singh and alongwith another daughter Priyanka, reached the spot where she has seen that the respondents are beating her son-Rahul with the aid of sticks, hands and fists. It was stated further that they somehow escaped her son and was, thereafter, admitted him into the District Hospital, Bilaspur. It appears further that though the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.D-5) was lodged by her, but has denied the same in her statement and, deposed further that she has not lodged any report after 07/05/2008, the date, when she informed the concerned Police Station, Torwa vide her intimation (Ex.D-4) that she received an information from a boy that her son was being beaten by the respondents. 10) PW-1 (Priyanka Singh) is the sister of the deceased and it was stated by her that on 07/05/2008 in the evening, one Anjum Parveen came to her house and informed that her brother, namely, Rahul was being beaten by 5-6 persons and stated further that after receiving the said information, she alongwith her mother and other members of her family, reached the spot where they have seen that her brother – Rahul Singh was being beaten by the respondents with the aid of sticks, hands and fists and, similar was the version of Rajkumar (PW-2), brother-in-law of the deceased and other family 7 members of the deceased, namely, Amit Singh (PW-4) and Arti Singh (PW-8). 11) Anjum Parveen, who informed the occurrence of the alleged incident to the deceased’s mother, was examined as PW-7 and it was stated by her that after seeing the deceased being beaten by the respondents, she informed the mother of the deceased and thereafter, immediately returned to her home and has not seen the incident thereafter. It appears further that although based upon the disclosure statements of respondents No.6 and 7, the alleged sticks were recovered from them (respondent No.6 - Mohammad Rasid @ Moh Akhtar and respondent No.7 - Moh Yusuf @ Sahd@ Saiyad), which was duly supported by Dilbag Singh (PW-3), but neither the query report of these seized articles was made, nor the FSL report was placed on record. 12) It is to be seen further that although, it was stated by all the relatives of the deceased that they have received the information from one Anjum Parveen that the deceased Rahul Singh was being beaten by the respondents on 07/05/2008 in the evening, but when the report (Ex.D-4) regarding the alleged incident was lodged by deceased’s mother to the Police Station Torwa, it was, however, not stated that she received the information from said Anjum Parveen and instead, it was found to be stated that she received the information regarding occurrence of the alleged incident from a boy and not from the said woman, i.e. Anjum Parveen and no explanation has been made regarding the alleged material discrepancy by the prosecution. 8 13) In view of such circumstances, the relatives of the deceased cannot be held to be the trustworthy witnesses. Since there are material discrepancies in their statements with regard to the fact that they received the information pertaining to the alleged incident from said Anjum Parveen, contrary to the information as was submitted by deceased’s mother (PW-6) at the time of furnishing the said information vide Ex.D-4, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a minor discrepancy in their statements and, as such, the reliance as was placed by the counsel for the appellant in the matter of Baban Shankar Daphal (supra), is, therefore, distinguishable from the facts involved in the present case and no reliance, could be placed upon it. 14) In view of the aforesaid background, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 15) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant