1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 281 of 2016 1. Dhirendra Kumar S/o Hari Satnami, Aged About 26 Years, 2. Babloo S/o Hari Satnami, Aged About 30 Years, Both are R/o Village Rasedi, Police Station and Post Baloda Bazar, Civil and Rev. District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Sheetal Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board (04.02.2025) 1. This revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, (C.G.) wherein the present applicants/accused have been convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- to each applicants, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.05 14:34:56 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 15.12.2011 at about 7:00 PM when the complainant Hemu Banjare (PW-05) was going to his home, at that time Aghandas and Rang Lal Satnami (both acquitted), due to previous enmity caught hold of him and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, applicant No.1 - Dhirendra Kumar assaulted the complainant with iron rod and applicant No.2 - Babloo assaulted him with stick due to which the complainant got grievous injuries over his body. The accused persons also threatened the complainant to kill. Somehow, the complainant reached near the house of his nephew Raj Banjare (PW-06) who called Brijlal Banjare (PW-03) who is the brother of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR (Ex.P-04) on 15.12.2011 before the police station Baloda Bazar. During investigation, the police seized iron rod from applicant No.1 - Dhirendra Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.P-01 whereas one bamboo stick was seized from applicant No.2 - Babloo vide seizure memo Ex.P-02. Thereafter, the complainant was medically examined and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar under Section 294, 323, 506 and 325/34 of the IPC. The applicants/accused abjured guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents apart from Final Report, whereas the applicants in support of their defence have not examined any witness. 3 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the present applicants along with two other accused persons (Aghandas and Ranglal) of the charges under Sections 294 and 506-II of the IPC and proceeded to convict them for offence under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the applicants/accused persons, wherein the appellate Court acquitted Aghandas and Ranglal of the charges framed against them however, convicted the present applicants under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that conviction of the applicants is not based on any legally admissible evidence and is erroneous. She further submits that the statement of the complainant Hemu Banjare (PW-05) is not corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses. She further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant and that of contents of the FIR (Ex.P-04) with regard to the weapon used. It is further contended that as per the statement of the complainant/injured, he was assaulted from back side and therefore, it is not possible for him to identify the accused persons from behind. She further submits that Bhawram (PW-01) and Kanhaiya (PW-02) who are cited to be the seizure witnesses, have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the 4 applicants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges giving benefit of doubt. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. She further submits that statement of the complainant (PW-05) is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, in view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the applicants herein, as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In order to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to deal with the statements of the important prosecution witnesses and other evidence. The complainant/injured – Hemu Banjare (PW-05) has lodged the FIR (Ex.P-04) stating that on the date of incident, the present applicant No.1 – Dhirendra Kumar has assaulted him with iron rod but in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he has stated that on the date of incident, applicants – Dhirendra and Babloo both have assaulted him with stick on his head from back side, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Further, it is stated that in the FIR (Ex.P-4) Aghandas and Ranglal had caught hold of him, abused him and threatened him for dire consequences whereas in his Court statement, 5 he has not stated anywhere that Aghandas and Ranglal @ Rangnath have caught hold and assaulted him. Thus, there occurs material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant/injured. 9. Bhawram (PW-01) and Kanhaiya (PW-02) are cited to be the seizure witnesses of the weapons being seized by the prosecution vide Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. Both these witnesses in their statements have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. 10. Brijlal Banjare (PW-03) who is the brother of the injured complainant in his statement has stated that on the date of incident, after hearing some noise, when he came out of his house, he saw the applicants Dhirendra and Babloo fleeing from the spot whereas in Ex.P-03 police statement, he has stated that the applicants and other accused persons caught hold of the complainant and committed marpit with the complainant which shows that his version is unreliable in as much as he has declared hostile. 11.Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the facts that there are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the statements of the complainant – Hemu Banjare (PW-05) and the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-04) with regard to the use of weapon, the seizure witnesses Bhawram (PW-01) and Kanhaiya (PW-02) have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, further, Brijlal Banjare (PW-03) has also declared hostile, I am of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. 12.In view of foregoing analysis, the impugned judgment dated 6 16.03.2016 is set aside. The present applicants are acquitted of the charge framed against them giving benefit of doubt. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of provisions contained under Section 437-A of CrPC. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed. 14.Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the concerned Superintendent of Jail for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash