1 2025:CGHC:10639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 760 of 2007 • Ramkumar S/o Satyadev Singh, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village-Raikera, P.S. Sitapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Thana, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia and Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 04/03/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Session Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 75/2005 whereby the learned Special Judge and Additional Session Judge have convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.06 11:09:15 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 323/34 of IPC Fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine amount R.I. for 02 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.01.2004, complainant Brijanath, member of Uraon tribe (Scheduled Tribe), was cycling from Raykera to Karawel Village. Near Gandhi Chowk in Raykera his cycle collided with the cycles of Ramdular and Premdhari. An argument was started and co-accused Darshan Das arrived asking why they were creating a ruckus. When Brijnath told him to leave, Darshan Das (co-accused) abused and assaulted him by way of a stick. Thereafter, Brijnath met complainant Mangalsai Uraon, who accompanied him back to the scene. The Appellant including Darshan Das and late Manmohan Singh, arrived and assaulted Baijnath and Mangalsai. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Sitapur and offence was registered against the present appellant with other co-accused persons under Sections 294, 323/34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. 3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the complainant has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 08 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence 3 punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned trial Court failed to consider that there are no reliable evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to consider that the injury sustained by the complainant are due to the collusion of two cycles and not by the assault given by the accused persons. He next submits that the learned trial Court should have to consider the Statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal (Pw-7) who has stated in his deposition that the injuries may be caused by collusion of cycle. He further submits that learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the injured persons namely Brijnath (PW-1) and Mangal Sai (PW-2) have stated that several blows were given to them by the three accused persons but as per medical evidence no such injuries were found as stated by them and FIR of the incident was lodged on 02.01.2004 before the Sitapur Police Station, when the incident was not found for any punishable offence, a proceeding U/s 107 and 116 of CrPC was registered against both the parties and later on 06.07.2004, this second report was lodged which is not maintainable. He further submits that the conviction is based only upon the conjectures and surmises which is liable to be set-aside and the present appellant may liable to be acquitted. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, Brijnath (PW-1) and Mangalsai (PW-2) who have clearly stated about the assault committed by the appellant by which they have suffered injuries and the same is also corroborated by medical evidence Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 proved by Dr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal (PW-7). As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 9 In that view of the matter, this Court is not required to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10 Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 11 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.