1 2025:CGHC:30075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 761 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Azad Chowk, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Daulatram Sonkar S/o Late Arun Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramkund Near Sai Mandir, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 03/07/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Raipur in Criminal Case No.4492/16, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 294 & 324 of the IPC, 1860. 2. Indisputably, the complainant/victim- Smt Rakhi Sonkar (PW-1) is the wife of the respondent/accused, but both were residing separately for the PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.04 14:29:52 +0530 2 last about 5 to 6 years. On the date of the alleged incident, the wife made a complaint on 12.11.2015 at about 16.30 hours at Police Station Azad Chowk, in which she states that she has been residing along with her mother- Smt. Rambai Sonkar (PW-2), at Gautam Nagar, Raipur, separately from her husband for more than 5-6 years. On the said date, at about 3.30 hours, the respondent reached her mother’s house in an inebriated condition and started abusing her in the name of mother and sister and also assaulting her by using a blade in the left cheek. The incident was witnessed by her mother, Rambai (PW-2). Based on such information, FIR No.259/15 was registered for the offence under Sections 294 and 323 of the IPC vide Ex-P/1. Crime details form (Ex-P/2) was prepared by K.S Chouhan, ASI, who was not examined. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW-3), who opined that the said injury was caused by hard and blunt object. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. During trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses. The respondent/accused, in his statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and has not adduced any defence evidence. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused by giving him benefit of doubt. Hence this Appeal. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is well established that in order to attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, it is necessary that the prosecution must prove that the offence has taken place in a public place to the annoyance of others. In the matter of N.S. Madhanagopal & Another Vs. K. Lalitha {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844}, it has been held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 (b) of the IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. The test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. 8. In the facts of the present case, on perusal of map (Ex-P/2), it is explicit that the incident took place inside the house. So the trial Court has rightly recorded that such a place is not a public place. Further, in the FIR (Ex-P/1), the actual word which has been uttered has not been mentioned. Further, the quarrel took place between the husband and wife, if any words have been uttered in between the quarrel, the same 4 cannot pass the test of obscenity. So the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 294 of the IPC. 9. Furthermore, the trial Court has recorded cogent reasons that during investigation, the blade which was used was not seized, though there is infirmity in the statement of Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW-3), who initially in his report (Ex-P/3) stated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object. Even the prosecution has registered the offence under Sections 294 and 323 of the IPC and no query has been proved by the prosecution that during the investigation, the injury was not caused by a hard and blunt object, but the same was caused by the sharp object. Even the doctor in cross-examination categorically admits the fact that such a nature of injury could be caused by any person, particularly when a married woman using the bangles. The prosecution has also not examined any independent witnesses to show that there was a long dispute between the husband and wife and both were residing separately. The incident occurred in a place mentioned in the map (Ex-P/2), which denotes that there are several other houses but to support the case of the prosecution, no neighbour has been examined, though the houses are adjoining to a public road. Even the Investigating Officer and the Officer who registered the FIR have also not been examined. 10.In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a 5 misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 11.From scanning of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one. Moreover, it is equally 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]. 12.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka