1 2025:CGHC:59731 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.527 of 2011 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.09.2025 09.12.2025 -- 09.12.2025 1 - Balram Yadav Aged About 30 Years Village - Singhanpur, Paterapali, P.S. - Kosir, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sukram Yadav S/o Bhagatram Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kalmi , Thana Kosir Distt. Raigarh (C.G.), Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh (C.G.) in ST No.17/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.-10 Santosh lodged the report (Ex-P/11) at police station Sarangarh on 19.12.2009 stating therein that on 18.12.2009 at about 7 P.M. after taking the meal his father Lakhan Lal went to the house of neighbor Sahasram Chouhan and returned at about 9 P.M. and thereafter he went to sleep in the room and he was sleeping in another room and at about 1.30 A.M. his sister namely Ku. Seema was screaming and told that somebody is assaulting his father, upon which he saw that his father was lying on the floor and one person was sitting upon him and trying to press his neck, then he gave one blow by a stick on that person as such he run away, thereafter he and his family members hospitalized his father. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The names of the appellants are not mentioned in the FIR and due to old enmity between the appellants and the injured, the 3 appellants have wrongly been prosecuted. The prosecution witnesses PW-5 Badrika Prasad, PW-8 Manohar Dhobhi and PW-14 Amrit Lal Yadav have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and prior to the TIP parade, the complainant party had already identified the persons to be identified, as such the TIP has no value, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspects of the matter and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Panchram vs The State of Chhattisgarh and another, passed in CRA No.1078/2023, decided on 11.04.2023, Raju and another vs State of Uttarakhand, passed in CRA No.1151/2010, decided on 31.07.2024, Naushey Ali and others vs State of U.P. and another, passed in CRA No.660/2025, decided on 11.02.2025 and in the matter of Sivamani and another vs State represented by Inspector of Police, passed in CRA No.3619/2023, decided on 28.11.2023 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Barve vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.839/2004, decided on 05.09.2024. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly 4 convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. As per dehati nalisi (Ex-P/11) and FIR (Ex-P/18), some unknown persons assaulted the complainant Lakhan Yadav. 8. Lakhan Yadav (PW-12) stated that on 18.12.2009 when he was sleeping in his house at that time the appellant Balram assaulted him by spear (tangi), then he tried to call his elder son Santosh but since he was assaulted on his throat, his son could not hear his voice. The accused was covering his face by shawl and when he was running then he recognized him as shawl fell down. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the accused Balram is his nephew (bhanja) and he knew him from his childhood. He stated that it is true that in his police statement, he did not tell the name of the accused or his village. He denied this suggestion that at the time of incident, he could not recognize the accused. He stated that in TIP (Ex-P/1) he recognized the accused Balram Yadav. He also admitted that there is dispute between Balram 5 and him regarding the land. 9. The complainant PW-1 Vishwanath, who is son of Lakhan, stated that he heard noise that his father was being assaulted by someone thereafter he came outside of his room and saw that the accused Balram was assaulting his father by tangi on his neck, upon which he tried to stop him, at that time his brothers Vishwanath and they tried to manhandle with accused and after sometime he got fainted. On the next morning, he reported the matter at the police station. He did not identify his signatures in TIP. In his cross-examination, he stated in his memorandum (Ex- P/1) that prior to the incident he knew the accused Balram. He admitted this suggestion of defence that in dehati nalisi and FIR he did not disclose the name of accused. He admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination that it is true that prior to the TIP proceeding, he identified the accusd Balram who was also in the police station. He also admitted that there is dispute between Balram and his family regarding the land. 10. PW-4 Manoj, grandson of Lakhan, stated that on the date of incident in the night somebody was assaulting his grandfather and he was covering his face by shawl thats why he could not recognize him. 11. Santram (PW-6) stated that Santosh had told him that his father has been assaulted by someone by tangi and has run away, thereafter he went along with him to see his father and saw that he was lying having blood stained. 6 12. Santosh Yadav (PW-10), son of injured Lakhan, stated that he had lodged the report at the police station, upon which dehati nalisi (Ex-P/1) was registered and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. He stated that on the date of incident he was sleeping in his room and when he heard the noise and informed by her sister that his father, who was in another room, is being assaulted, upon which he rushed there and saw that the accused Balram Yadav was trying to press the neck of his father, then he beat him by a stick upon which he ran away. He also stated that his father was having blood stained and there was wound cut on his neck. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in dehati nalisi he got written that one unknown person assaulted his father and ran away. He also admitted that while giving his police statement, he did not tell the name of the accused. In para 7 he also admitted that before TIP proceeding, he had identified the accused Balram on the identification done by Inspector. He admitted that there is old dispute between the accused Sukram and them. He denied this suggestion that they are falsely implicating the appellants due to old enmity. 13. Dr. J. R. Dhartlahre (PW-17) examined the injured Lakhan Yadav and found following injuries on the body of injured as under:- “pksV Ø01 कटा हुआ घाव गले क सामने म मध्य भाग म जो बाहर क ओर बाय तरफ जो fØk कइटा कटाले जो क नेचे आ़ቡ / तितरछी" 6 X 2 X 2 सा म क आकर क था, जिजोसा पर सा रक्त स्ቔኋव ह रह था । खू+ने क नेलिलेय- एव/ मसाप शी कटा हुय था । pksV Ø02 - कटा हुआ घाव गले क पछी ओर बाय तरफ 6X 2X2 सा म जो आ़ቡ साथा ह मसाप शी क एव/ रक्तवतिहने क चेटा पहु/चेय गय था। जिजोसा पर सा रक्त स्ቔኋव ह रह था । 7 pksV Ø03- कटा हुआ घाव नेचे ह-ठ क बाय2 ओर 2 X 1 सा म क खू़ቡ चेटा। pksV Ø04 - कन्टा+जोने बाय हथा म साथा ह सा+जोने एव/ दद जो तिहलेने म अ्ቌम था। चेटा क आकर 6 X 4 सा म । pksV Ø05 कटा हुआ घाव द़ቢ", म दय2 ओर 2X1 सा म क जो तितरछी था । pksV Ø06 कटा हुआ घाव बाय प8र म टाखूने क नेचे 6X 2 X 2 सा म जो मसाप शी तक एव तरछी था । pksV Ø07- कटा हुआ घाव पठ म बाय2 ओर स्क ल्प क उपर 3 X 1 सा म तरछी था ।" He gave his report (Ex-P/14) and in query report (Ex-P/15) he stated that the injuries sustained by the injured may be dangerous to life. In the cross-examination, he stated that during examination, the injured was conscious and was talking. In x-ray report (Ex-P/17) fracture was found in alna bone. 14. Thus, the learned Trial Court rightly found that on the date of incident Lakhan Yadav sustained grievous injuries, but it is clear from dehati nalisi (Ex-P/11) and FIR (Ex-P/18) that in both documents appellant’s names were not disclosed by the complainant and dehati nalisi was lodged against the unknown person. The complainant and other witnesses admitted this suggestion of defence that they had already seen the accused in the police station before TIP (Ex-P/1). 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gireesan Nair and Ors. Vs State of Kerala, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 955, held in paras 32, 33 & 34 which reads as under:- “32. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless 8 (Sk Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra7). Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh19 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay20). 33. It is significant to maintain a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP. If rules to that effect are provided in Prison Manuals or if an appropriate authority has issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP is under a compelling obligation to mandatorily maintain the prescribed ratio. While conducting a TIP, it is a sina qua non that the non- suspects should be of the same age-group and should also have similar physical features (size, weight, colour, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries, etc.) to that of the suspects. The officer concerned overseeing the TIP should also record such physical features before commencing the TIP proceeding. This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra and Ravi v. State10). 34. It is for the prosecution to prove that a TIP was conducted in a fair manner and that all necessary measures and precautions were taken before conducting the TIP. Thus, the burden is not on the defence. Instead, it is on the prosecution. (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra)” 16. In light of the above, it is clear that all the witnesses saw the accused at the police station before the TIP as such TIP parade is not proved against the appellants. The names of the appellants were also not mentioned in the dehati nalisi (Ex-P/11) and report was lodged against unknown persons. The complainant and injured also admitted this suggestion of defence that they have previous enmity with the accused, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate these aspects of the mater and wrongly convicted 9 the appellants for the aforesaid offences, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 18. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala