1 2025:CGHC:19914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 158 of 2016 1 - Ramprasad Kushwaha S/o Late Tapeshwar Kushwaha Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Vinayakpur, P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopal Kushwaha S/o Ramprasad Kushwaha Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Vinayakpur, P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 30/04/2025 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 37/2009 by the learned Special Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) has 2 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 435 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months to both the appellants. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.08.2005 after ploughing the field from the plough the complainant left the plough near the field and the appellants rashed to the spot and abused the complainant and his companion and they were carrying fire arms and Gadasa and told the complainant why are you ploughing the field, which is recorded in the name of the appellants and also given threat to the complainant. 3. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and without considering the fact that the complainant have kept enmity with the appellants, because after knowing well, the appellants are the recorded owner of the land in question. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the 3 submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of offense by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding of learned trial Court and the impugned judgment of the Court below needs no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. PW-1 has deposed in his statement that three years ago there was a fight in their farm. Ram Prasad and Gopal had gone to plant saplings in the field. Ram Prasad and Gopal had gone with the police officer of Shankargarh. Inspector Sapan Choudhary beat up Chaklu, Satnu, Bhaula and Tibhu by sticking them in the mango tree and accused Ram Prasad took their Nagar Jua to his field, snatched it and set it on fire i.e. burnt it. In para 6 of his cross- examination he admitted that he has not produced the land deed even through the Government Advocate. He further admitted that he is not possessing the papers of land and that is the reason he has not given to the police officer. He again admitted that he occupied the alleged land at the behest of Naxalites. 8. PW-2 has deposed in his statement that it was Sunday and he was going to plough his field. Suiri, Gajwa, Ratia, Jhangna also went with him. They were carrying 6 ploughs. When they were 4 returning in the evening after ploughing, their ploughs were cut and burnt by the accused Ramprasad Kushwaha in the fields of Turia Pahadi Korwa. The plough was set on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on it. He cannot tell why accused Ramprasad had burnt his plough. In para 5 he admitted that the field which they had ploughed had small paddy plants growing on it. Those plants were uprooted during ploughing. He also admitted that the accused had planted crops in that land and the names of the accused are mentioned in the revenue records. 9. PW-4/ Sub-Inspector has admitted in para 2 of his cross- examination that the reason for delay in writing the first information was that the applicant had gone out of the village. He did not do any investigation regarding whether the applicant had actually gone out of the village or not. It is true that he did not verify the fact that the complainant was actually Vishwanath. 10. PW-5/ Retd. Asst. S.P. has admitted in para 11 of his cross- examination that the report was lodged on 24.08.2005. In para 12 he admitted that he has not siezed any burnt plough or ashes. He himself said when he reached the place of incident he did not found any remains of burning plough. In para 15 he admitted that no revenue document has been presented along with the charge sheet regarding the land where ploughs are said to be cut or burnt belongs to the complainant. 11. Close scrutiny of evidence on record reflects that there are 5 material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 has deposed in his statement that accused has set his ploughs on fire but in cross-examination he admitted that he occupied the alleged land at the behest of Naxalites. PW-2 has deposed that when they were returning in the evening after ploughing, their ploughs were cut and burnt by the accused Ramprasad Kushwaha, but in cross-examination he admitted that the accused had planted crops in that land and the names of the accused are mentioned in the revenue records. 12. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has committed error in convicting the appellants under Section 435 of IPC. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 435 of IPC is hereby set-aside. 14. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 15. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima