1 2025:CGHC:38960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 527 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus 1 - Rukhmani Bai Sahu D/o Ewan Kumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years. 2 - Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ewan Kumar Sahu Aged About 29 Years. 3 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Ewan Kumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years. 4 - Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Chetan Lal Sahu Aged About 22 Years. All R/o Village- Baagtarai, Police Station- Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/accused. For State/Appellant : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl AG. For Respondents : Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 06/08/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod Distt. Balod C.G. in Criminal Case No.1738/2016 whereby, respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part 2), 323(two times)/34 of IPC {according to charge memo, AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.08 11:27:51 +0530 2 section 323 (3 times)}. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that injured Shyamlal (PW-1) lodged an FIR on 29.10.2016 at about 12:00 noon with the police station Guroor vide Ex.P/1 giving information that on the same day at about 10:00 am near the house of Kartikram (PW-4) in the village street, village Sarpanch Rukhmani Bai (Accused-1) along with her son Umesh Sahu (Accused-2), Hemant Sahu(Accused-3) and their relative Ajay Sahu (Accused-4) were quarrelling with his son namely Tovendra Sahu (PW-2) and daughter Bhuneshwari (PW-6) on account of a complaint made before the SDM, Balod on 08.04.2016. The accused persons abused both of them in filthy language and also threatened them. When the complainant Shyamlal (PW- 1) intervened between them, all the four accused persons also assaulted him by hands, fists and club and also threatened to kill. The incident was witnessed by Lemin bai (PW-3) and Kartik Ram (PW-4), sister and uncle of Tovendra Sahu (PW-2), respectively. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/2. Injured Shyamlal (PW-1), Tovendra Sahu (PW-2) and Bhuneshwari (PW-6) were examined by Dr. GR Rawte (PW-9) and simple injuries were found on them. A wooden club was seized from Accused-2 vide Ex.P/3. 3. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. During the trial, respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited seven documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7. 6. Respondents/accused, in their statement, pleaded that they have been 3 falsely implicated and stated that there was political rivalry between both the families on account of panchayat election for the post of Sarpanch and as accused persons had lodged a complaint against Shyamlal (PW-1), therefore, a false report has been lodged against them. Respondents/accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondents/accused persons. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgment which is well merited and does not call for any interference. 10.I have heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11.In the case at hand, complainant Shyamlal (PW-1) admits, in his cross examination, that on the basis of complaint made by Rukhmani (A-1) against him, there are two cases pending, out of which, one was registered under Section 354 IPC and earlier also, complainant made a complaint against Rukhmani (A-1) before the SDM. This witness further explained that as he had made complaint against the accused Rukhmani, therefore, the said accused lodged a false FIR for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Shyamlal (PW-1) also admits that there were no talking terms for about 10 years between both the families, therefore, there was previous enmity between the family of complainant Shyamlal (PW-1) with the accused 4 persons, which calls for minute examination of evidence by this Court. 12. Perusal of spot map (Ex.P/2) shows that incident happened in the village street and though there were houses of other persons in the surrounding, however, prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses and the witnesses who were examined are close relatives of complainant namely Shyamlal (PW-1), injured Tovendra (PW-2) his son, Bhuneshwari (PW-6) his daughter, Lemin bai (PW-3) sister of Tovendra (PW-2) and Kartikram (PW-4) uncle of Tovendra (PW-2). Except these witnesses, no other independent witnesses were examined. Even if the statement of the said witnesses is examined, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions as to the manner of the incident. In the Court statement, Shyamlal (PW-1) deposed that he was assaulted by club by accused Rukhmani (A-1) and Hemant (A-3), but in the FIR (Ex.P/1), no such specific details have been mentioned. Bhuneshwari (PW-6) deposed that all the accused persons had beaten her. Kartikram (PW-4) deposed differently that all three accused persons, except Rukhmani, were assaulting his brother Shyamlal (PW-1) and nephew Tovendra (PW-2) and Rukhmani (A-1) was beating Bhuneswari (PW-6). Likewise, Lemin Bai (PW-3) has also stated differently as to the manner of the incident and deposed that Rukhmani (A-1) and Umesh (A-2) caught hold of the collar of injured Tovendra (PW-2) and all the accused persons were assaulting her father Shyamlal (PW-1) and brother Tovendra (PW-2) against the wall. Lemin Bai further deposed that Rukhmani (A-1) took a club from the Badi and assaulted Shyamlal (PW-1) thrice by it. 13.In the present matter, prosecution has seized only one club from Accused- 2 namely Umesh and the said seizure memo has also not been proved by 5 the seizure witness namely Tikaram Chandan (PW-5) who has turned hostile. 14. Dr. GR Ravte (PW-9) has also not proved medical examination report during the trial. Even the club was not sent for the examination. 15.On minute examination of the evidence, it appears that there was previous enmity between the families and there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the injured witnesses and other witnesses i.e. Lemin bai (PW-3) and Kartikram (PW-4) also about the genesis of the incident. Hence, in such circumstances, when the benefit has been extended by the trial Court in favour of the accused persons, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. 16.As regards charges under Section 294 of IPC, the trial Court has found that no specific words were uttered which pass the test of obscenity and regarding the charge under Section 506 (Part 2), there is no evidence at all. 17.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court culminating in acquittal of the respondents/accused persons of the charges is well merited and does not call for interference. 18.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash