1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 305 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 22.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 28.03.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Chhagan Lal Yadav, S/o Roshan Lal Yadav, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Lodhi Khapri, P. S. Saja, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.88/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant-Tekram Sahu had an illicit relation with the wife of accused/respondent- Chaggan Lal Yadav and in this regard, meeting was held in the village where accused/respondent was fined Rs.25,000/- and it was also decided in the said meeting that complainant-Tekram Sahu will not visit the house of AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.03.28 16:41:35 +0530 2 accused/respondent and will not talk to him, but before the incident, complainant told he wants to meet the wife of accused/respondent, thereafter, wife of accused/respondent informed the same to accused/respondent. On the date of incident i.e. 02.08.2015, at about 7:00 pm, while complainant-Tekaram Sahu was returning from his field after switching off the pump, at that time, he was assaulted by accused- respondent with stick, due to which, complainant suffered injuries over his body. After that, complainant was taken to Saja Hospital for treatment and thereafter, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-16) was lodged by police at Community Health Centre, Saja and on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P- 21) was registered against the accused-respondent. 3. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1 and complainant-Tekram Sahu was sent for medical examination where PW-5 Dr. G.S. Thakur examined him and gave his MLC report vide Ex.P-14. Accused-respondent was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-2, pursuant to which, stick and one piece of wood were seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Vide Ex.P-8, clothes of complainant were seized. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the concerned trial Court under Section 307 of IPC. Accused- respondent abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charge leveled against him. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court acquitting the respondent herein from the alleged offence is apparently contrary to law, as the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the injured witness, namely PW-6 Tekram Sahu has not been considered in its proper manner by the trial Court. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused / respondent would support the impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge level against him as in the present case, PW-6 Tekram Sahu / injured himself has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case against the accused / respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of 4 complainant/PW-6 Tekram Sahu, eye-witness to the incident and except him, none of the witnesses has seen the incident nor supported the prosecution case. PW-6 Tekram Sahu/complainant has stated that on the date of incident, he had gone to his field to switch off the pump and at that time, respondent-accused came there and started quarreling with him, due to which, he fell down on the field and received injuries. However, this witness (PW-6) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case by stating that in police statement (Ex.P-17), he has not stated that accused/respondent assaulted him and he cannot tell the reason as to how police wrote the said statement. In cross-examination, he specifically admitted that accused-respondent has not committed any marpeet with him and he got injured due to his fall on the boundary (medh). This apart, PW-8 Bishambhar Sahu, brother of the complainant, also admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know anything about the incident and PW-6 Tekram Sahu did not inform him as to how he received injuries. Since the complainant/victim, who alone is an eye-witness to the incident, has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, was justified in acquitting the accused / respondent herein of the said charge, which does not call for any interference. 11. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh