1 2025:CGHC:45367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 118 of 2015 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Rupesh Kumar Shriwas S/o Suresh Kumar Shriwas Aged About 26 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar Police Chowki C.S.E.B. P.S. Kotwali, Korba Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms.Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr.Vikas Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 04/09/2025 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Case No.77/2011, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused / respondent from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Mohd. Shafiq Khan is working in Gaurav Dresses, Niharika Cloth Shop and there was also AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 a girl namely Jaya is working there. The accused / respondent also had also worked at Gaurav Dresses. On the date of incident i.e. 21.07.2011 at about 10.30 P.M. the complainant was returning from duty and going to his home from Cycle, near Check Post Bhadrapara, Balco, the accused / respondent after stopping the complainant made conversation and between conversation stating about the girl Jaya assaulted the complainant by a knife. On crying and calling by the complainant, the accused / respondent fled away. Then an unknown person took him Police Chowki Rampur. Thereafter, the FIR was registered in Crime No.748/2011 for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC against the accused/respondent. 3. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused / respondent and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record by the impugned judgment of acquittal has acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the 3 accused appropriately. She further submits that learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged. Learned trial Court is not justified by discarding evidence of PW-3 Gorelal Sahu in its perspective who has categorically stated that on the date of incident, when he was going towards Balco he saw that a boy is felt down near Vidyutgrih School Chowk and there was bleeding. Thereafter he took him Police Chowki Ramnagar. She also submits that learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated that the statements of PW-1 Safiq Khan and other witnesses; PW-2 Mohd. Sakir Khan, PW-5 Jamila Begum, PW-6 Vasal Khan and PW-3 Gorelal Sahu do not support on the some points. Learned trial Court is not justified by giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions appeared in the prosecution evidence. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused / respondent deserves to be convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused / respondent supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned trial Court considering the evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the accused / respondent, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. In paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded the testimony of Dr. M.S. Pal, as deposed during his chief 4 examination. Dr. Pal stated that on 21.07.2011, at approximately 1:50 A.M., the injured person, Shafiq Khan, was brought to the District Hospital, Korba, by Constable Santan Yadav from the Rampur Police Chowki for medical examination. Upon being questioned, the injured informed that he had been assaulted by certain individuals, resulting in injuries to his neck. Upon clinical examination, the injured was found to be conscious, his pulse and heart rate were within normal limits, and he was capable of coherent communication. Dr. Pal noted three incised wounds on the anterior aspect of the neck and one incised wound on the middle finger of the right hand. The injuries were described as having been inflicted by a sharp and hard object, and the estimated time of infliction was within the preceding six hours. Given the nature and location of the injuries, the injured was referred to an ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat) specialist for further evaluation. An X-ray examination of the neck and right hand was also advised. However, in the absence of the specialist's opinion, Dr. Pal refrained from making a conclusive statement regarding the exact nature of the injuries at that time. The initial medical report was marked as Exhibit P-9. Subsequently, on 20.08.2011, the Rampur Police Chowki sought Dr. Pal’s opinion regarding the severity and nature of the injuries, specifically whether they were life-threatening. In response, Dr. Pal opined that although the injuries were of a simple nature, they could have become life- threatening had timely medical intervention not been provided. This subsequent report was marked as Exhibit P-12. In his cross- examination, Dr. Pal stated that prior to furnishing the opinion 5 recorded in Exhibit P-12, he had reviewed the bed-head ticket of the injured thoroughly. He reaffirmed that, in his professional opinion, the injuries were of a simple nature. He further added that, in case of any doubt regarding his assessment, a specialist opinion from an ENT doctor should be obtained. He also clarified that the X-ray examination of the injured was conducted on 04.08.2011. He denied the suggestion that the X-ray advice noted in Exhibit P-9 had been inserted at a later stage. Dr. Pal consistently maintained that the injuries sustained by Shafiq Khan were simple in nature. 8. Further, In paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has further observed that, upon careful analysis of the evidence on record, the testimony of PW-1 Shafiq Khan lacks corroboration from other witnesses namely, his brother-in-law PW-2 Mohammad Sakir Khan, his mother PW-5 Jamila Begum, and his cousin PW-6 Wasal Khan on material aspects of the alleged incident. The statements of these witnesses are marked by material contradictions and inconsistencies, which significantly weaken the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that there are notable discrepancies between the complainant’s oral testimony and the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him, particularly with respect to key details of the occurrence. PW-5 Jamila Begum, the complainant’s mother, deposed that the injuries were inflicted using a hexa blade, however, this assertion finds no support in the testimonies of the other related witnesses. All three witnesses stated that they were present at the police outpost after the incident, met the injured, and were apprised of the incident by him. However, their 6 testimonies do not conclusively establish that they indeed met the complainant at the police outpost or that any narration of the incident took place at that time. Furthermore, considering the fact that the complainant allegedly knew the accused persons prior to the incident and claimed to have informed the witnesses about the same immediately thereafter, the failure of these witnesses to name the accused in their initial statements appears unnatural and casts serious doubt on the credibility of their versions. The Court also noted with concern that the copy of the FIR was sent to the Magistrate with considerable delay, which remains unexplained and further affects the reliability of the prosecution's case. Additionally, the alleged recovery of the knife pursuant to the accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Significantly, the medical evidence, particularly the statement of the examining doctor, reveals that the knife sent for forensic examination does not match the description of the weapon as recorded in the seizure memo, thereby further weakening the prosecution’s version of events. 9. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not 7 permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 10. In the present case, the trial Court has duly considered all material aspects, including inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, doubtful recovery, and non-corroborative medical opinion. It has given detailed and cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 11. It is also to be noted that the incident relates to the year 2011, and the appeal has been pending for over a decade. In such a situation, unless a gross miscarriage of justice is shown, interference with an order of acquittal after such a long lapse of time is unwarranted. 12. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil