2025:CGHC:44683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 15 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Lalit Kumar Shau S/o Dularwa Sahu, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Bhurka, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Shri S.P. Sahu, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 02/09/2025 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 06/08/2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.14891/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 324 of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, when the complainant- Chandrashekhar reached in front of the house of respondent on 25/09/2015, where Lord Ganesha was installed, the respondent got annoyed as his mother was abused by him and started assaulting NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.09.03 12:16:59 +0530 him with the aid of iron Tangdi (small axe) while abusing filthy words. It is alleged further by the prosecution that on account of the alleged assault, he sustained injuries on his backside and, the alleged incident was seen by one Magleen Bai and others and the weapon, used for the commission of the alleged crime, was recovered from the respondent on 26/09/2015 vide Ex.P/5, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Biselal Sahu and Aaju Ram Sahu. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant- Chandrashekhar Sahu was examined as PW-2, who stated that on the said fateful day, he was assaulted by the respondent-Lalit Kumar Sahu with the aid of the alleged weapon, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his waist and, has informed the alleged incident to his younger brother, namely, Lokesh Sahu. It appears further from his testimony that on account of the injuries caused, he was examined medically at Abhanpur Hospital. Further of his testimony would show that said Mangleen Bai has seen the alleged incident from her house and none have came for intercepting the matter, but from perusal of the report (Ex.P/2) lodged by him, it appears that when he was assaulted as such by the respondent- Lalit Kumar Sahu, the alleged incident was intercepted not only by said Mangleen Bai, but others also. There is, thus, disparity in his version. 4. Moreover, Mangleen Bai (PW-1), said to have intercepted the alleged incident has, however, not supported the alleged version, as was narrated by the complainant-Chandrashekhar Sahu as, according to her, the respondent-Lalit Kumar Sahu was neither holding the alleged weapon on the said fateful day, nor was she aware that he was abusing the complainant while using filthy words. 5. It is to be seen further that, although, the brother of the complainant, namely, Lokesh Kumar Sahu (PW-3) has stated that he has seen the blood was oozing from the waist of his brother/complainant, but neither the MLC report was placed on the record, nor the doctor treating the complainant, was examined. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the complainant’s sole testimony. 6. Besides, the alleged weapon, used for the commission of offence, was shown to have been recovered from the respondent on 26/09/2015 vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5) in presence of the two witnesses, namely, Biselal Sahu (PW-4) and Aaju Ram Sahu (PW- 5), but both have, however, turned hostile without supporting the same. 7. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde