2025:CGHC:10540 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Acq. A. No. 85 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, ---- Applicant Versus 1. Pawan Pandey, S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, aged about 23 Years, R/o Boirdadar, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. Ravendra Pandey, S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, aged about 19 Years, R/o Boirdadar, P. S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Applicant : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A. . For Respondents : Ms.Sheetal Shama, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Manoj Paranjpe. _____________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 07/03/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by the State, being aggreived by the judgment dated 06/12/2013 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, Class-II, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 140/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pawan Pandey & Anr.). 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the repondents for the offence punsiable under sections 294, 506 Part-I and 323 of the IPC. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.11 10:54:15 +0530 -2- 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 18/02/2013 at 12.30 P.M. in the night, the complainant Mahesh Shukla was going towards Boirdadar Chowk by walking, at that time, in front of Temple of the Lord Radha Krishna, upon seeing the Complainant, the accused Pawan Pandey and his elder brother Ravindra Pandey, by saying that he (complainant) is a witness in Section 302 of the I.P.C. against them (accused) and he (complainant) obstructed to encroach the land /property of the Yadav community and by abusing the complainant with filthy languages, committed the marpit with the complainant by hands and punch and pushed the complainant down in the earth and on account of the same, simple injuries were received by the complainant in his left chicks and right hand. Thereafter, upon the complaint made by the complainant, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons and the investigation was conducted and during the investigation, statements were recorded and in the investigation, the offence under Sections 294, 506 and 323 of the I.P.C. has prima facie been found against the accused and after completion of investigation, the final report was filed by the police before the competent court of law. 4. The respondents were charged for an offense punishable under sections 294, 506 Part -I and 323 of the I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, prosecution has examined 06 witnesses and exhibited as many as 07 documents. The statement of the respondents under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they pleaded false implication and examined 01 defense witnesses in their defense D.W./1. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record, it has committed an error of law in disbelieving the statement of the complainant - Mahesh Shukla. The case against the respondents was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside and they may be convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. -3- 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial court has categorical held that the statement of the complainant – Mahesh Shukla (PW-1) and Lala Ram (PW-2) are not credible and given a benefit of doubt. Independent witness had not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstance of the case and evidence available on record, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents and since no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial court, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 9. Learned trial Court has meticulously examined the veracity of complainant – Mahesh Shukla (PW-1) and Lala Ram (PW-2) who said to have seen the incident. The trial court has recorded a finding that there is variation in the statement of these two witnesses. Apart from this the injuries which these two witnesses are indicating caused upon the complainant is altogether are on different part of the body. Since there is a variance in the statement of these witnesses and independent witness Amit Soni (PW-5) has also not supported the case of the prosecution, the statement of these witnesses are not trust worthy. A part from this the learned trial court has also doubted the Ex.P/2 (spot map), on the basis of the statement of Rajendra Singh (PW-3). The respondents have examined one defense witness Chandrashekar Pandey (DW/1) who have categorically stated that there is a property dispute pending between the complainant and the respondents in the Court of Tehsildaar. The learned trial court gave a finding that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Though this Court has jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence but until and unless the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court appears to be perverse, the findings of the acquittal may be disturbed. If there is possibility of two views, the view which favor the appellants thereto should be followed. Complainant - -4- Mahesh Shukla (PW-1) stated to have received injuries on right hand and back. Whereas Lala Ram (PW-2) states about injuries on head and cheeks and both injuries were curt injuries. In MLC (Ex.P/7) indicates injuries on right hand swelling on back side of neck. In FIR (Ex.P/1) indicates injuries on left cheek and right hand. The learned trial court variation on the oral evidence and documentary evidence with regard to injuries sustained by complainant. Statement of the PW-1 clearly goes to show the sustenance of prejudice. Amit Soni (PW-5) has also not supporting the case of the prosecution. The spot map appears to be doubtful as it does not indicate the actual place of the incident. Apart from this from the statement of DW-1, it appears to be a case as false implication there was a property of disputes amongst the parties. 11. In light of above, the view taken by learned trial court appears to be a possible view and does not to be perverse or contrary to evidence. Therefore, appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/-- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish