1 2025:CGHC:25501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 197 of 2022 1 – State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Siksod, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shyam Charan Narvas, S/o Jagru Ram Narvas, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chargaon, Police Station Siksod, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 18/06/2025 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 29/04/2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.441/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 325 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.06.19 15:13:25 +0530 2 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that one Panduram Thakur son of Bishnuram Thakur, lodged a report at Police Station Antagarh against the respondent on 08/10/2017 at about 01.00 p.m., on the basis of Hospital memo and based upon which, an investigation was conducted in Crime No.0/2017 and since place of the incident was under the jurisdiction of Police Station Siksod, village Chargaon, therefore, for the sake of recording of its original number, it was sent to Police Station Siksod, wherein the case was registered against the respondent under Sections 294, 323 and 325 of IPC in connection with Crime No.14/2017. During the course of investigation, statement of complainant and others’ were recorded, wherein it was revealed that the first installment of Rs.30,000/- was received in favour of the complainant by Sarpanch under the Government Scheme for digging ditch (kind of pond) and in order to receive the said amount, the father of the complainant- Panduram, namely, Bishnuram Thakur approached the said Sarpanch, who informed him that the alleged amount has been handed over to the respondent Shyam Charan Narvas. It is alleged further that when he (Bishnuram) went to the respondent- Shyam Charan Narvas on 07/10/2017 and demanded the alleged amount, he got annoyed and assaulted him with the aid of stick while using filthy words. On account of the alleged assault, he sustained injuries and was examined medically by Dr. A.K. Sambhakar (PW-10). During the course of investigation, a bamboo stick was recovered from the respondent vide Ex.P/4 on 05/12/2017 and after completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, who in turn, has framed the charge against the respondent on 11/01/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 325 and 506 Part II of IPC and the charges so framed were denied by the respondent and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has held that since there are material discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the respondent is held to be innocent and, accordingly, acquitted him from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of alleged crime is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the complainant-Panduram and the father of him, namely, Bishnuram, the injured, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. The respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 325 and 506 Part II of IPC 4 with regard to the incident occurred on 07/10/2017 at about 1.00 P.M. According to the prosecution, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned in the name of Bishnuram under the Government Scheme for digging ditch (a kind of pond) and for collecting the same, he approached the concerned Sarpanch, who informed that the alleged amount has been given to the respondent- Shyam Charan Narvas, but when he demanded the alleged amount from him, he, however, got annoyed and assaulted him with the aid of stick by using filthy words. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, one Ajay Kumar Dehari, Sarpanch of village Chargaon was examined and according to him, the alleged amount of Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned in the name of complainant’s father-Bishnuram Thakur for the construction of Dabri (a kind of pond) under the Government Scheme and the information regarding the alleged amount was given to him (Bishnuram Thakur). He deposed further that the amount of him was given to the respondent and told him to collect the same from him, but he did not approach him for collecting the same as revealed from para 4 of his testimony. In para 5 of his cross-examination, it was denied that his son (Panduram) had informed him that his father was assaulted by the respondent while using filthy words, when he demanded the alleged amount from him. Panduram (PW-2) is the son of the injured Bishnuram, but, he has denied the fact that his father informed him that the respondent has abused him by using the filthy words. Further of his evidence would show that at the time of the incident, he was neither present on the spot, nor was 5 aware that who were with his father at that particular time. 9. Devsingh Patel (PW-3) was stated to be an eye-witness, but, he was, however, not aware regarding the alleged incident. Insofar as statement of the complainant’s father Bishnuram (PW-4) is concerned, it appears that the Sarpanch had not informed him that the alleged sanctioned amount was given by him to the respondent- Shyam Charan, nor was there any dispute with him for the alleged amount of Rs.30,000/-. Besides, it was admitted by him at para No.7 that later on, he came to know regarding the alleged sanctioned amount of him was not given to said Shyam Charan, the respondent herein. Although, it was stated by him in his evidence that he was assaulted by said Shyam Charan with the aid of stick, but the evidence of him was, however, not found to be supported by any of the other prosecution witnesses, as observed herein-above. 10. In view of the aforesaid background and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the the commission of alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde