1 2025:CGHC:41353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 499 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Taman S/o Kamta Kannoje Aged About 26 Years R/o Goverdhan Chowk, Purani Basti, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivmadi (Died and Deleted) (As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated- 30- 07-2025). ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 18/08/2025 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.08.19 10:19:45 +0530 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, in Criminal Case No.1051/2016, whereby, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 506/34 & 294 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief, is that, on 03.09.2016 at about 10:45 pm, the respondents along with co-accused Shivmadi (who died during the pendency of the Appeal) and Kamta Prasad, came in front of the house of complainant- Smt. Tarini Chandrakar (not examined) and consumed liquor. Thereafter, they started saying that the complainant has sent them to jail and abused her in filthy language, insulting her mother and sister and also threatened to kill her. Based on aforesaid incident, an FIR was registered on the same day at about 11:35 pm at Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar. Crime details form was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution has not examined any witnesses and by the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents. Hence, this Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and thus, prays to allow the Appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would support the impugned judgment. 3 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering that despite an opportunity being granted to the State, the prosecution failed to examine a single witness during trial, this Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence against the accused and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 506/34 and 294 of the IPC. 7. Resultantly, this Appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka