1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 145 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. .... Appellant versus 1 - Nandkishore @ Bablu, S/o Panna Lal Burmen, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Dhobghatti, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Savitri Bai, W/o Panna Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dhobghatti, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. For Respondents : None, though served. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 25.04.2025 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 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara District ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.04.25 17:42:36 +0530 2 Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.37/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323 (three times) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323 (three times) and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 24.12.2014, a function of “Gurughashi Das Jayanti” was organized in the village Dhobghatti and for the said purpose, street light were connected in electric pole, which was disconnected by the Respondent No.1-Nandkishore @ Bablu, therefore, he was objected by the complainant-Suranjit Barman, owing to which, the respondents started quarreling with him while using filthy language and assaulted his mother, as well as sisters and brother with the aid of iron rod. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, Surjanjit Barman, the complainant, was examined as (PW/1) but, it appears from his testimony that he was unable to state that who has disconnected that electric wire and failed to state further that how the injuries were caused to his mother, sisters and brother-Panna Lal. In his cross-examination, at para-5, he has denied specifically that the Respondent No.1-Nandkishore @ Bablu has assaulted with the aid of iron rod to his mother, brother and sisters. He, thus, not 3 supported the prosecution story. Mother of the complainant namely-Krishna Bai was examined as (PW/2) and she was also unable to state that who has disconnected the electric wire and, denied the fact in her cross-examination, at para-3, that they were assaulted by the accused persons. Smt. Amrika Bai (PW/3), the sister of the complainant has stated that some quarrel was being taken place in the village, but failed to state that who disconnected the electric wire and who assaulted them. Smt. Champa Bai Khute (PW/4), the another sister of the complainant has stated that she is not aware that Respondent No.-1 Nandkishore @ Bablu has disconnected the electric wire, or assaulted her mother with the aid of iron rod. Panna Lal Barman (PW/5), the brother of the complainant was also not aware that who has assaulted to whom, and likewise, is the statement of Ambe Bai Satnami (PW/6), the cousin of the complainant. 4. It, thus, appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and, the Trial Court while taking note of the statements of theirs have not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 5. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan