1 2025:CGHC:47220-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 434 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Manpur, District: Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1. Bisahu Ram S/o Kaviraj Gond Aged about 18 years. 2. Vishwanath, S/o Kaviraj Gond, Aged about 23 years 3. Vishnuram S/o Kaviraj Gond, aged about 31 years. 4. Kishun, S/o Kaviraj Gond, aged about 34 years. (All R/o Vill. Markeli, P.S. Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon) Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.09.2025 1. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.08.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 70/2004 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B 427, 307, 316/34 of IPC. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.16 17:50:56 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01/01/2004 at 7:30 p.m., Vishwanath/respondent No.2 entered the house of Sanotsh Kumar, and started assaulting him regarding conducting Pooja in the house. Thereafter, other respondents too started abusing Santosh and assaulted him. Bisahu/respondent No.1 assaulted the wife of Santosh namely; Jamuna Bai, who is pregnant at that time, by means of Lathi. He also assaulted the daughter of Santosh namely; Amrita and his brother-in-law namely; Mohan. All the respondents have assaulted them and abused in filthy language. Based on above facts, FIR was registered against the respondents. 3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.08.2004 acquitted the respondents/accused herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondents have entered the house of the Santosh, started abusing him and assaulted him. Thereafter, the respondents assaulted his wife, daughter and brother in law. Learned State counsel further submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in the case. The learned trial Court not appreciated the fact that the respondents have assaulted 3 Jamuna Bai, who was carrying four months pregnancy with Lathi. Hence, looking to the act committed by the respondents, the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed as follows:- “26. According to the statement of Santosh Kumar (PW1), his wife Jamuna Bai was hit in the stomach, but who hit her, he did not see because he was not there. Only his daugther Sarita and Amrita were there. Jamuna Bai has stated in his evidence that Santosh and Sumitra Bai were present when accused Bisahu assaulted her in the stomach and has said that the said incident happened in the courtyard. Therefore, the statement of Santosh Kumar himself does not reliable that his wife Jamuna Bai was hit in the stomach with a stick by accused Bisahu." 27. Sumira Bai stated in her evidence that she does not know who assaulted Jamuna Bai. Bhaduram PW-6, who is cousin of Santosh stated that he does not know who assaulted Jamuna Bai. 29. It is clear from the statement of Dr. Kiran Patel, PW-12 that there was only tenderness and pain in the stomach of Jamuna Bai, there was no external injury. It is not reflected 4 from the statement of Dr. Kiran Patel that the injury sustained by Jamuna Bai was fatal or sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. 32. According to Santosh Kumar, all the accused persons consumed alcohol. Sumira Bai PW-11 stated that respondents and Santosh consumed alcoho. From the statement of Jamuna Bai, Vishwanath went first to lodge a report regarding the fight between her husband and the accused. If Vishwanath had not gone first to lodge a report, they would have also settled the matter in the village. She also stated that since both of them belonged to the same family, they were ready to compromise.” 8. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 5 9. In light of the evidence presented, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Key witnesses, including Sumira Bai (PW-11) and Bhaduram (PW-6), have not identified the persons, who assaulted Jamuna Bai, and the evidence adduced by Dr. Kiran Patel PW-12 does not support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, testimonies suggest that the incident arose in the context of a drunken altercation within the same family, and there was an inclination among the parties to settle the matter amicably. In such circumstances, where material contradictions and lack of conclusive medical or eyewitness evidence exist, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. 10. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep