1 2025:CGHC:44549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 534 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. versus 1. Priyajeet Singh @ Chintu S/o Late Shri Bhupat Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhagwanpur, Manendragarh Road, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Dudhnath Goswami @ Vishal S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad Goswami Aged About 38 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Shailu @ Shailendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Prakash Chand Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Pappu @ Santosh Kashyap S/o Shri Aditya Prasad Kashyap Aged About 39 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Vishal Vishwakarma(Absconded) S/o Shri Ashok Vishwakarma Aged About 34 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.09.03 10:14:46 +0530 2 6. Govind Manwani S/o Shri Shankar Lal Manwani Aged About 40 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7. Akhilesh Singh(Absconded) S/o Shri Ravindra Nath Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Sonhat, Police Station- Sonhat, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 8. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Udaibhan Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Mahalpara, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. For Appellant : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 02.09.2025 1. The appellant/State has preferred this acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Case No.419/2011, whereby, the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 506 Part-II and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.10.2004 in the night at about 23:30 in front of the house of the complainant Ramkumar, the accused persons unlawfully assembled and abused complainant in filthy language and annoyed him in a public place and also extended a threat to kill him. 3. Thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR No.214/2004 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Surguja for the offence under Sections 294, 506-B & 34 3 of the IPC against four persons, namely, Priyajeet Singh @ Chintu, Dudhnath, Akhilesh, Bharat Singh and others. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Crime details form and spot map was prepared on 05.10.2004. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against 8 accused persons. 4. During trial, respondents/accused Priyajeet Singh @ Chintu, Dudhnath, Shailu @ Shailendra Verma, Pappu @ Santosh Kashyap, Govind Manwani and Bharat Singh abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. However, the other two accused persons namely Vishal Vishwakarma and Akhilesh Singh were shown as absconding in the impugned judgment. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, no witness has been examined by the prosecution, though the trial Court has given several opportunities to produce the evidence. The record also reflects that the trial Court considering that the case has been pending for about 13 years and several opportunities were already given, including the last opportunity, which was given on 23.11.2017, however, despite that since the prosecution has not produced any witness, closed the proceeding for the prosecution witness on 07.12.2017, and posted the case for recording of the accused statement. Thereafter, the trial Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence, acquitted the respondents/accused from the charges as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 4 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused only on the ground that no evidence has been produced by the prosecution, therefore, this appeal may be allowed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. 8. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed way back in the year 2004 and charges were framed on 15.06.2016. Thereafter, the case was listed several times for production of the prosecution witnesses, however, despite several opportunities being given, no witness has been produced by the prosecution. Even the last opportunity was granted on 15.11.2017 with a warning that the case has been pending for 13 years, but despite such order, the prosecution failed to produce a single witness, and subsequently, the proceeding for the prosecution witness was closed on 07.12.2017, and the case was posted for the accused statement on 21.12.2017. The said order remained unchallenged by the prosecution. Furthermore, the prosecution has recorded the statements of complainant Ramkumar, his wife Mani Rakhi, son Rajesh Kumar, daughter Ku. Aarti and one Anil. On perusal of their statements, it appears that the complainant had called them during the alleged incident and thereafter they reached the spot, however, none of them have been examined before the trial Court. 9. It is well established that an expeditious trial is a fundamental right of the accused. However, no trial can be prolonged for an indefinite period 5 when the prosecution itself has failed to produce any evidence. It is also expected from the authorities conducting a prosecution to be vigil in producing the witnesses before the Court in order to ensure a fair and expeditious trial. 10. In view of the above and considering the facts situation of the present case, this Court of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents/accused from the charges levelled against them. 11. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay