1 2025:CGHC:40182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 243 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Ashish Kumar Gajendra, S/o Lal Singh Gajendra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Sudheer Mukharjee Ward, Hanuman Mandir Ward, Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : None. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 11/08/2025 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 22/02/2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in C.I.S.No.19426/2015, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506 Part II of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, a report was lodged by the NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.08.12 10:36:13 +0530 2 prosecutrix on 17/11/2015 alleging, inter-alia, that on the said fateful day, she was in the premises of the Family Court at Raipur regarding the case of divorce initiated by her husband-Ashish Kumar, who, on that particular time, came and started abusing her with filthy words and assaulted with the hands and fists and threatened to kill her. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered on the said fateful day i.e. 17/11/2015 at 04.30 P.M. Further prosecution story is that when she was assaulted by her husband, her friend, namely, Akash Koushik and her father, namely, Suresh were present and have seen the incident. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, it appears from her testimony that when she was assaulted by her husband and was being abused, the alleged incident was seen by her friend, namely, Akash Koushik and her father, namely, Suresh. The alleged of her version is found to be supported by her said friend Akash Koushik (PW-2), but, according to her father (PW-3), it appears that he was not present on the spot, as revealed from his statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, though he was not aware how it was recorded in his said statement. It is, however, to be seen as reflected from para 6 of the statement of the prosecutrix that she went to the Police Station after informing to him. The presence of the prosecutrix’s father, thus appears to be doubtful that he was present on the said fateful day. 4. It is to be seen further as revealed from perusal of the record that on the same day and prior to lodging of her report, the husband/respondent had lodged the report (Ex.D-2) on the same 3 day at 04.15 P.M. regarding the alleged incident, though no cognizance was taken on his said report. Although, the alleged incident appears to have been occurred on the said fateful day, however, considering the disparity as occurred from her (PW-1) statement regarding the presence of her father, coupled with the prior report (Ex.D-2) lodged by her husband, it cannot be said that the alleged incident was occurred at the instance of the respondent and the trial Court, while taking note of those materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde