1 2025:CGHC:13829-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 263 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhannu Ram Rajak S/o Anjori Rajak, Aged About 21 Years, 2 - Anjori Ram Rajak S/o Late Jivrakhan Rajak, Aged About 55 Years, 3 - Phool Bai W/o Anjori Ram Rajak, Aged About 50 Years All are R/o Village Darbantokla, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State :Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondents :Mr.Deepak Diwakar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 22.03.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 12.05.2017, passed by the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.24 10:52:54 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagah, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.1/2016, whereby, the Respondent No.2-Anjori Ram Rajak(A-2) and Respondent No.3- Phool Bai Rajak (A-3), have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC, while respondent No.1-Chhannu Ram Rajak (A- 1), has been convicted in lesser punishment under Section 325 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 20/10/2015, a Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P-3) was lodged by the complainant- Surendra Rajak, the brother of the injured, namely, Mannu Ram Rajak, alleging therein, that on the said day, around 4:30 PM, he had gone to his agricultural field where he has found that someone has disconnected the water pipe-line and therefore, he asked that who has disconnected the same and, at that particular time, Chhannu Ram Rajak, Respondent No.1 herein, who is his cousin, abused him while using filthy language and when he (complainant) asked about the water pipe, he (Chhannu Ram) denied the same and thereafter, he (Surendra Rajak) was returning back to his house. It is alleged further that on his way, the Respondents stopped him and again started abusing him while using filthy language and upon hearing the noise, his injured brother- Mannu Ram Rajak came there and tried to intervene the matter. In the said altercation, he (Mannu Ram Rajak) was assaulted by said Chhannu Ram Rajak with the aid of axe on the backside of his head, while others, namely, Anjori Ram and Phool Bai, who are his real uncle and aunt, while abusing filthy and obscene words, started beating him with hands and fists, owing to which, his brother received grievous injuries on his head and 3 blood was oozing and thereafter, he fell down unconsciously and the accused persons have fled away from the spot. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered on the same day against the Respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.215/2015. During the investigation, blood stained clothes and axe was recovered from Respondent No.1- Chhannu Ram Rajak vide Ex. P-8 based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Lal Singh (PW-6) and Jivan Lal (PW-7) and the articles so recovered, were sent for chemical examination, but, no human blood was found thereon, vide FSL report (Ex.P-12). After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan against the respondents in connection with Crime No.215/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh for its trial, where above-mentioned charges have been framed against the respondents, which were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and has exhibited 12 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that although, the brother of the complainant, 4 namely, Mannu Ram Rajak was assaulted by Respondent No.1- Chhannu Ram Rajak (A-1) with the aid of axe, but, since the injury was not found to be fatal based upon the statement of Dr. Gambhir Kokadiya (PW-3), he (Chhanu Ram Rajak) was, therefore, held guilty with lesser punishment under Section 325 of IPC and has been sentenced for the period already undergone by him and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation, while acquitting his parents, i.e. Anjori Ram Rajak (A-2) and Phool Bai Rajak (A-3) with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court, holding that the Respondent No.1- Chhannu Ram Rajak to be the guilty of lesser punishment under Section 325 instead of 307 and 294 of IPC and that by acquitting his parents in relation to the alleged offence, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been 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 has supported the impugned judgment as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the 5 complainant, namely, Ram Dayal and said Anjori Ram, the Respondent No.2, are the real brothers and from the statement of the complainant- Surendra Rajak (PW-2), it appears that there was a land dispute between them and a meeting was convened in this regard in the village and after the alleged meeting, his father has died by hanging. It appears further from his (PW-2) testimony that on the fateful day, i.e. 20.10.2015, when he (Surendra Rajak) was returning from his agricultural fields, he was stopped by the Respondents, while using filthy words and upon hearing the noise, his injured brother, namely, Mannu Ram Rajak came and intercepted the matter, who was assaulted by Respondent No.1- Chhannu Ram Rajak, with the aid of axe, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his head and was admitted into the Community Health Centre, Gandai, where, he was examined by Dr. Hemant Upadhyay and while considering his injuries, he was referred to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. In the said hospital, he was examined by Dr. Gambhir Kokadiya (PW-3), who opined that the injuries sustained by him were not sufficient to be fatal and after considering his report (Ex.P-5), vis-a-vis, his statement, the trial Court has convicted the Respondent- Chhannu Ram Rajak with a lesser punishment provided under Section 325 of IPC, instead of Section 307 of IPC and, we do not find any infirmity in it, so as to call for any interference this appeal. 9. Insofar as the finding of the trial Court acquitting the Respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it appears from the testimony of the 6 complainant- Surendra Rajak (PW-2) and his injured brother- Mannu Ram Rajak (PW-5) that they have failed to state that what kind of filthy words, that were, used by them, which caused any kind of annoyance to them and, in absence thereof, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them with regard to the alleged offence as well. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita