1 2025:CGHC:3820-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2352 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarkshi Kendra Amlipadar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Narhari Netam S/o Shri Shibo Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o Kuhimal (Kumharpara) Thana Amlipadar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .0 1 .202 5 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 419(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G) in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2019 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.23 10:56:17 +0530 2 by which the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. I.A. No. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 264 days in filing the instant petition for leave to appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.05.2019, one Punudhar Gond lodged an oral complaint to Police Station Ambikapur that on 18.05.2019 at about 12.00 a.m., he along with his family member was sleeping in their home, at that time present respondent/accused caught her wife, Bhumisuta along with his brother on suspicious condition and abuses and beaten her with bamboo stick. Due to this wife of respondent/accused received severe injuries. After receiving oral complaint FIR (Ex.P/1) has been registered. During the course of investigation Nazri Naksha and Patwari panchnama has been prepared and victim was sent for medical examination. Memorandum statement vide Ex.P/6 of present respondent/accused was recorded and the weapon bamboo stick was recovered at the instance of respondent/accused. Thereafter, statement of victim and other witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. During the course of investigation respondent/accused has been arrested and after collecting sufÏcient evidence against the accused/respondent and after due completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused/respondent and the trial was commenced. 3 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent / accused from the offences for which he has been charged with by giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent/accused is the husband of the injured, Bhumisuta (PW-11) and she has suffered injuries on her person and the injuries were found to be grievous in nature and in paragraph 43 of the judgment dated 20.07.2023, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that other prosecution witnesses i.e. Punudhar Netam (PW-1), Banvasi Jagat (PW-3), Raysingh (PW-5) & Hariram Manjhi (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the accused has been acquitted further on the ground that only on the basis of suspicion the FIR has been lodged against the respondent/accused, but the learned State counsel argues that there was specific categorical allegation against the accused/respondent made by this wife, Bhumisuta (PW-11) in her deposition before the trial Court that the accused struck her with a stick on her legs, hands, waist, and head, threatening to kill her. It is correct to say that Punudhar Gond and Hariram Gond intervened and if Punudhar Gond and Hariram Gond had not intervened, the accused would have taken her life. It is correct to say that the accused struck her on the head, resulting in bleeding. Thereafter, she lost consciousness and fell to the ground due to the severe beating by the accused. She regained consciousness after the villagers administered water to her. 7. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence of victim, Bhumisuta (PW-11) without there being any strong reason to discard her testimony. Hence, without considering the testimony of victim (PW-11), the trial Court 4 acquitted the respondent/accused by giving them benefit of doubt, which is perverse and contrary to the law and as such, the leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case where application under Section 419(3) of the BNSS deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 419(3) of the BNSS is allowed. 9. OfÏce is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 10. The CrMP is disposed off accordingly. 11. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 12. Let a bailable warrant of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be issued against the respondent / accused for his presence before this Court on 24.02.2025. 13. Paper-book has already been prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan