1 2025:CGHC:31962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 469 of 2024 1 - Radhe Lal Gupta S/o Yudhisthir Gupta, Aged About 55 Years R/o Saraipali, Dipapara, P.S.- Pussore, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Applicant versus 1 - Maniram Patel S/o Rupchand Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Krishna Patel S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Dhaniram Patel S/o Rupchand Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Chandra Kumar @ Guddu Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Rishikesh Patel S/o Salikram Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Sitiya Patel D/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Punimati Patel D/o Maniram Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 9 - Sant Kumar Patel S/o Salikram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o- Saraipali, Dipapara, Raigarh, Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Pushor, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Leekesh Kumar on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate 2 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suman Kumar Kesary, Advocate For State Ms. Neeta Tulsani, PL HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT Order on Board 10/07/2025 This is a criminal revision filed against the judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 94/2023 affirming the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, CG in Criminal Case No. 1022/2016 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-II, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 18.05.2016 at about 8:30 AM when applicant/complainant was preparing for erecting the bamboo fencing, the respondents/accused came there, accused Krishna started taking photographs of the complainant and that of the bamboos collected by him and that when complainant asked them not to do that, they started abusing filthily and threatening him for life accused Chandra Kumar inflicted an axe injury on his forehead, shoulder and thigh; accused Maniram inflicted injury with club and others with hands and fists. They are also alleged to have abused Safed Gupta and made him run. FIR was registered, after investigation charge- sheet was filed and charge was framed against the respondents/accused under the aforesaid sections. 3. Learned Magistrate after considering the documents on record acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 16.08.2023. On appeal also the said judgment of acquittal has been affirmed vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 which is under challenge in this revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that though there is ample evidence on record including the medical evidence but even then both the Courts below have erred in law in recording a finding of acquittal of the respondents/accused. He submits that there is evidence to show that the accused/respondents should have been convicted under Section 397 and 307 IPC but ignoring the material collected by the prosecution both the courts 3 below have chosen to acquit the respondents/accused which is palpably illegal and requires interference by this Court in this revision. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/accused supports the judgment under challenge and submits that since there are concurrent findings recorded by two courts below based on due appreciation of evidence on record, the order of acquittal is absolutely justified and needs no interference in this revision. While arguing the case, he referred to the legal position where it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that if the material available on record gives rise to two plausible views, the one favoring the accused has to be preferred. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Magistrate acquitting the respondents/accused is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. So also the affirmation of the same by the Lower Appellate Court also appears to be fully justified. This apart, this Court is not oblivious of the settled legal position that if two possible views arise out of the evidence on record, the favour has to be to the one which is beneficial to the accused. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned concurrent findings of the two courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed, with the affirmation of the judgment under challenge. Sd/- (SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) JUDGE Pawan