1 2025:CGHC:18526-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 135 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Rohit Verma, S/o Tirath Verma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Amora, Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20/07/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara in Sessions Trial No.52/2016, whereby, the respondent has been PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.25 12:03:50 +0530 2 acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC and instate he has been held liable for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC on the allegation that on the date of incident, which occurred on 30/04/2016 at about 07:00 PM, he took the injured- Maksudan by his motor-cycle towards the Tendubhata, and pressed his neck with the aid of scarf and tried to commit the murder of him, as his wife has died while consuming poison in his name. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the complainant- Maksudan (PW-5) vis-a-vis, the statement of the Dr. Vinay Kumar Tamrakar (PW- 3) and Dr. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) opining the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature, held that the intention of the respondent was not to commit the murder of the complainant and, accordingly, he has been acquitted for the alleged offence mentioned hereinabove and, instead has been held guilty under Section 323 of IPC. 4. It appears from perusal of the statement of the complainant that on the date of incident, i.e. 30/04/2016, in the evening, he was sitting along with his friend- Salik Ram Verma near the Baghiya Tank and, at that particular time, he received the call by the respondent- Rohit Verma, who asked about his whereabouts and then told him to remain there and after sometime, he came and on the pretext to go to the village- Bijabhata, took him by his motor-cycle, and near the 3 Tendubhata Bridge stated that since his wife has consumed poison by telling his name and died and, therefore, he would also have to die and may talk to anyone else, owing to which, he talked with his friend- Salik Ram Verma by his mobile informing that the respondent wanted to kill him on account of death of his wife and, deposed further that with the aid of scarf, he pressed his neck, as a result of which, he sustained certain injuries on his neck and became unconscious. 5. Although, it was stated by him (complainant) that on account of the alleged assault, he became unconscious, but, according to the statement of Dr. Pawan Kumar (PW-4), it appears that, he was in full conscious and after his examination, as many as, 3 injuries were found by him, out of which, the injuries No.1 and 2 were found to be simple in nature in his neck, while blood clotting was detected in his eyes with regard to the injury No.3, for which, he was referred to Ophthalmologist and in pursuance thereof, Dr. Vinay Kumar (PW-3) examined him on 26/05/2016, where his eyes are found to be in normal condition. 6. It, thus, appears from the evidence of the complainant (Maksudan) that his neck was pressed by the respondent with the aid of scarf, owing to which, he sustained injuries, but the injuries found therein are simple in nature and are not found to be sufficient for the cause of his death as opined by the Dr. Pawan Kumar (PW-4). It is to be seen further, as reflected from the alleged injuries inflicted on his neck, that the same are extremely a light one and, even otherwise, if it would have been the intention of the respondent for the commission of his murder, he would have pressed his neck tightly, and/or would have come with some deadly weapons, but instead he has used the scarf 4 while pressing his neck. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has any intention to cause his murder with the aid of alleged scarf and, the trial Court after noticing the same, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of IPC, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant