1 2025:CGHC:3371-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.161 of 2010 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ashish Mahawar S/o Ashok Mahawar R/o- Old Bus Stand, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kashyap S/o Late Laxman Prasad Aged About 21 Years R/o Ratanpur, P. S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Balaji Kahra S/o Ramu Prasad Aged About 19 Years R/o Dabrapara, Ratanpur, P. S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chotu @ Upesh S/o Virendra Kumar Shriwas Aged About 19 Years R/o Thanapara, Ratanpur, P. S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : Shri P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri Vinay Dubey, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 20/01/2025 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 02/11/2007, passed by SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.141/2007, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part- II, 450 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, while convicting the respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 323 IPC and sentencing him for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC, along with the default clause as mentioned therein. 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 03.05.2007 at about 9 PM, a quarrel took place between the deceased- Ghanshyam and the respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar and on account of that, at about 10.30 PM, when the deceased-Ghanshyam was at home, the respondent No.1 came along with other accused persons and abused him. It is alleged further that the respondent No.1 entered into the house of the deceased by saying that he will kill him and dragged him in front of his house, while using filthy words and the deceased was beaten by hands and fists by them. The said incident has been seen by the father of the deceased, namely, Judawan (PW-1) and brother, namely, Shyam Kumar (PW- 2), who tried to intervene them and thereafter, on the same day, at about 11 PM, the father of the deceased, lodged a report (Ex.P-1) before the Police Station Ratanpur against the accused persons, in which, offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered in connection with Crime No.120/2007. The Injured-Ghanshyam was examined medically by 3 Dr. Avinash Singh (PW-6) and due to head injury, he was referred to the CIMS Hospital at Bilaspur and thereafter, he was shifted to the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, where, during the course of his treatment, he died on 09.05.2007. Postmortem of the dead body of the deceased-Ghanshyam was conducted by Dr. Mahesh Rawatrai (PW-5), who in his report (Ex.P-10), opined the cause of death to be coma, which occurred as a result of brain stem injury on the head. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the respondent No.3- Balaji Kahra, a brick was recovered from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and, owing to death of the injured-Ghanshyam, an offence under Section 302 IPC has been registered against the respondents and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned Trial Court, where the charges have been framed against the respondents under Sections 294, 506 Part- II, 450 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the charges, so framed, were denied by the respondents-accused persons and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents-accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, while two witnesses have been examined by the respondents-accused persons in their defence. 4 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that on the fateful day, the deceased-Ghanshyam was dragged by the respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar and was assaulted by him and others, but, since none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the respondents, except the respondent No.1, assaulting the deceased, therefore, they have been acquitted from the alleged offence, while convicting the respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar for the commission of the offence under Sections 452 and 323 IPC, sentencing him for two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC, along with the default clause as mentioned therein, and the conviction of the respondent No.1, as such, was found to be affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2007. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court acquitting the respondents, is apparently contrary to law, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, was not scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in passing the judgment under appeal as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment as passed by the learned trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident occurred on 03.05.2007, an FIR (EX.P-1) was lodged by the deceased’s father namely, Judawan (PW-1), due to which, the respondents-accused persons have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 9) It appears from perusal of the record that the Father of the deceased namely, Judawan (PW-1) and brother namely, Shyam Kumar (PW-2) were the eye-witnesses with regard to the occurrence of the alleged incident. However, when father was examined before the Court, he, however, stated that as soon as his son was dragging by respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar, he rushed to the Police Station and has seen nothing and, has seen the injuries of his son only upon returning from the Police Station. It appears further from his testimony that he failed to identify the other respondents-accused persons. 10) Shyam Kumar (PW-2), who was the brother of the deceased, though stated in his statements (Ex.P-3 & P-4), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was assaulted by the respondent No.3- Balaji Kahra with the aid of brick, but, when he was examined before the Court, he, however, has not supported his said version and failed to identify others, except the respondent No.1-Ashish Mahawar. 11) Besides, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated anywhere that the respondents have entered into the house of the deceased, armed with any kind of weapon and the respondent No.1 alone was seen by the deceased’s father and brother, assaulting the deceased with hands and fists. 6 12) In view thereof, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13) In view of above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-SD/-- d/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane