1 2025:CGHC:38348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 599 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus 1 - Baratu Kanwar S/o Shri Suban Kanwar Aged About 70 Years R/o Darima, Police Station - Darima, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (accused) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari ) Judgment on Board 04/08/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur, distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.6163/2012 whereby, respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 294, 506 ( part 2) & 324 of IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that injured namely Dadu (PW-1) and respondent are real brothers whose agricultural fields are adjoining (upar- neeche). There was a dispute regarding flow of water in the fields as respondent did not allow the water flowing from the field of complainant to flow into his field and on the date of incident i.e. 17.07.2010 at 9:30 in the morning, a dispute arose between both the brothers and respondent abused AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.05 15:31:26 +0530 2 the complainant in the name of mother and sister, threatened to kill and assaulted him by using axe, because of which, Dadu sustained injury in his right forearm. FIR was lodged by injured person vide Ex.P/2 with the police station Darima, Distt. Surguja and victim was medically examined vide Ex.P/4 wherein, it was mentioned that simple injury was caused by a sharp cutting edge weapon like axe, which was seized vide Ex.P/1. 3. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 4. During trial, respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited four documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4. 6. Respondent/accused, in his statement, pleaded false implication and did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence this Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, therefore this appeal may be allowed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 10.Admittedly, in the case at hand, complainant Dadu and respondent are real brothers and there was no partition between both of them at the time of incident. A dispute arose between them in relation to flow of the water in the agricultural field. Dadu (PW-1) in the FIR (Ex.P/2) gave information that at the time of incident two witnesses were present namely Bahoran (PW-2) who has not supported the case of complainant and stated that he 3 has not seen any such incident, whereas the other witness was not examined namely Sita. 11.During investigation, though statements were recorded, however, no independent witness has supported the case of injured (PW-1). Dr. BL Kaushal (PW-6), in his cross-examination, admitted that injury found in the body of the victim (PW-1) can be caused if a person falls on a agricultural instrument used for plowing. Further, there was a dispute between two brothers and as per the story of the prosecution, there are two independent witness among them, one has not been examined and the other has turned hostile. 12.Considering the aforesaid infirmities, the trial Court has recorded the finding in favour of the accused/respondent and acquitted him of the charges. Further, as regards charge under Section 294 IPC, no specific words have been proved and mere empty threat is also not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 506 (part 2). Hence, this Court is of the opinion that finding recorded by the trial Court is possible one and no case is made out for any interference. 13. It is settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See: Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617 & Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114 }. 14.Accordingly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash