1 2025:CGHC:31963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 159 of 2025 1 - Krishna Patel S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram Saraipali, Ps Pussore And Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned District Pussore In Ordersheet) 2 - Sanjay Chaudhary Patel S/o Maniram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Saraipali, Ps Pussore And Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned District Pussore In Ordersheet) 3 - Maniram Patel S/o Rupchand Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Saraipali, Ps Pussore And Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned District Pussore In Ordersheet) 4 - Smt. Sityabai Patel W/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Saraipali, Ps Pussore And Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned District Pussore In Ordersheet) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Radhelal Gupta S/o Late Yuthisthir Gupta Aged About 55 Years R/o Saraipali, Dipapara, P.S. Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Safed Gupta S/o Late Yuthisthir Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Saraipali, Dipapara, P.S. Pussore, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Leekesh Kumar on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suman Kumar Kesary, Advocate Fort State Ms. Neeta Tulsani, PL HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT Order on Board 2 10/07/2025 This is a criminal revision filed against the judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2023 affirming the order judgment 04.08.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, CG in Criminal Case No. 1059/2016 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 342/34 IPC. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 18.05.2016 at about 8:30 AM when applicant/complainant was preparing for erecting the bamboo fencing, the respondents/accused came there, accused Krishna started taking photographs of the complainant and that of the bamboos collected by him and that when complainant asked them not to do that, they started abusing filthily and threatening him for life accused Radhelal inflicted an injury with brickbat on the foot of the father of the complainant as a result of which he suffered injury one of his toes, at the same time Safed Gupta caught the hand of complaint’s aunt Sitiya (Badi Maa) and dragged her towards his house and the mother of complainant Punimati went to rescue her then Safed Gupta pushed her and came out from the house and taking Sitiya inside the house and close the door. Complaints knocked on the door of Safed Gupta to free their aunt (Badi Maa) but the door did not open. FIR was registered, after investigation charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed against the respondents/accused under the aforesaid sections. 3. Learned Magistrate after considering the documents on record acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 04.08.2023. On appeal also the said judgment of acquittal has been affirmed vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 which is under challenge in this revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that though there is ample evidence on record including the medical evidence but even then both the Courts below have erred in law in recording a finding of acquittal of the 3 respondents/accused. He submits that there is evidence to show that the accused/respondents should have been convicted but ignoring the material collected by the prosecution both the courts below have chosen to acquit the respondents/accused which is palpably illegal and requires interference by this Court in this revision. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/accused supports the judgment under challenge and submits that since there are concurrent findings recorded by two courts below based on due appreciation of evidence on record, the order of acquittal is absolutely justified and needs no interference in this revision. While arguing the case, he referred to the legal position where it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that if the material available on record gives rise to two plausible views, the one favoring the accused has to be preferred. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Magistrate acquitting the respondents/accused is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. So also the affirmation of the same by the Lower Appellate Court also appears to be fully justified. This apart, this Court is not oblivious of the settled legal position that if two possible views arise out of the evidence on record, the favour has to be to the one which is beneficial to the accused. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned concurrent findings of the two courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed, with the affirmation of the judgment under challenge. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan