1 2025:CGHC:44909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 335 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhavni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus Sunil Singh S/o Shri Suchidar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Permanent Address Radhopur, Thana Judawan, District Vaishali, Bihar, R/o JP Nagar Camp 1, Near Sulabh, Thana Chhavni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 03.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25.09.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District - Durg (CG) in RCC No.32750/2011, whereby, the respondent, namely, Sunil Singh has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 323 & 324 of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, on 11.01.2010 complainant Uday Singh (PW-01), lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1), before the Police Station Chhavni, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) alleging inter alia, that on 11.01.2010 at about 07:30 PM, near Heavy Motors Power House Bhilai, his nephew i.e. respondent/accused Sunil Singh, abused him in filthy language and threatened to kill him, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.09.04 16:29:23 +0530 2 thereafter, the accused took out a blade from his pocket and assaulted him on his left cheek and left chest, due to which he suffered injuries on his body. The said incident was witnessed by Mukesh, Ghosh and Uday Raj. Thereafter, the complainant/victim was medically examined before Dr. Smt. Seema Jain (PW-03) and as per her report (Ex.P-4), she opined that the victim has suffered simple injuries over his body. During the course of investigation, statement of the victim and other witnesses were recorded and based on the seizure memo (Ex.P-02), one blade was recovered from the accused Sunil Singh in front of seizure witnesses, namely Vikram Tripathi (PW-02) and Neelmani Ghosh (not examined). 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Durg, and thereafter, the respondent/accused has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offences mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. The trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the judgment acquitting the respondent/accused of the aforesaid charges is contrary to law. He further submits that there is evidence available on record to show the active participation of the respondent/accused in the crime in question, particularly, the fact that the complainant was assaulted by the accused with blade which was seized from the possession of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2), further the doctor who examined the complainant has also stated that cut injury was found over the complainant’s body. Despite such evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondent/accused of the aforesaid charges. On these premises, he urged that the respondent /accused may suitably be convicted and punished while modifying the impugned judgment. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment of acquittal, as there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant and in the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-1). He further submits that the place of incident where the alleged incident took place, appears to be contradictory and doubtful. Moreover, the names of the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, have not been examined. Though the seizure witness, namely Vikram Tripathi (PW-02) has been examined by the prosecution, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. However, there is no evidence on record to show the complicity of the respondent/accused in the crime in question and the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted him of the charges leveled against him, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 8. To deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to firstly discuss the evidence of the complainant Uday Singh (PW-01) who in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of alleged incident, he was sitting in his transport office, at that time, the accused Sunil Singh came there while sticking blade on his hand and assaulted him and also abused him in filthy language. He has further stated that at the time of incident, the staff Tripathi and Nandlal were also present and thereafter, he lodged the report. However, this witness while lodging the FIR (Ex.P-1) has mentioned that when he was present near Power House Bhilai Heavy Motors, the accused came there and abused him in filthy language and, thereafter, took out a blade from his pocket and assaulted him. Thus, from the statement of this witness, there appears major contradictions regarding the place of alleged incident and further, the manner in which the accused assaulted the complainant with blade. Therefore, the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-1) is not duly corroborated with the statement of the complainant. 4 This apart, the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused Sunil Singh is his nephew and it appears that there was some land dispute between them. 9. Furthermore, the complainant has stated that his staff Vikram Tripathi (PW- 02) and Nandlal have seen the alleged incident but Vikram Tripathi (PW-02) in his testimony has clearly denied that he knew the complainant Uday Singh and he knew about the alleged incident. He has further stated that he has not put his signature in the seizure memo (Ex.P-2) nor the police has made any seizure from the possession of the accused. Thus, this witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. This apart, another eye-witness, namely, Nandlal has not been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, Mukesh, Ghosh and Uday Raj have also not been examined by the prosecution as they were cited as eye-witnesses. 10.Moreover, the doctor, namely, Smt. Seema Jain (PW-03) who has examined the complainant, has stated that on the basis of the medical report (Ex.P-4) and X-ray report (Ex.P-5), she found that the injuries sustained to the complainant is of simple nature. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that no object or weapon was brought before her by the police for examination and the injuries sustained to the complainant can also be self- inflicted. 11. Looking to the above, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused. The trial Court, considering the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him as there was no cogent and clinching evidence on record for convicting the respondent/accused. 12.After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned is just and proper and does not call for any 5 interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent/accused herein of the charge under Sections 294, 506-B, 323 & 324 IPC is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash