1 2025:CGHC:61273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1460 of 2025 1 - Akil Das S/o Late Mangal Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Kishunpur Police Station Darima, Present R/o Bakirma, Police Chowki Manipur, Police Station Am- bikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being heard and disposed off. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Sarguja in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2024 (Annexure A/1), afÏrming the judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No. 72/2021, whereby the learned JMFC, Ambikapur District Surguja has convicted the applicant and sentenced as under: Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:44 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence Section 323 of IPC S.I. for 3 months (twice) and fine of Rs. 500/- (twice), in default of payment of fine, 10 days additional S.I. Section 325 of IPC S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days additional S.I. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the incident pertains to 08.08.2020 at about 10:00 a.m. at Village Bakirma Karmitikra, at the house of the complainant, Kaushalya Das. On the said date, the complainant’s son-in-law, Akil Das, started abusing the complainant’s daughter, Panmeshwari, by hurling filthy and obscene abuses. When Panmeshwari objected to such abuses and asked him to desist, Akil Das threatened to kill her and assaulted her by fists, kicks, and a stick. During the course of the incident, when the complainant Kaushalya and her daughter Rajkumari intervened to rescue Panmeshwari, Akil Das also assaulted them with a stick. As a result of the said assault, Kaushalya sustained injuries on her left hand and on the left side of her waist, Panmeshwari sustained injuries on her right leg and shoulder, and Rajkumari sustained injuries on her left hand. All the injured persons were medically examined at the District Hospital, Ambikapur. Upon X-ray examination, the reports of injured Kaushalya Bai and Rajkumari revealed fractures of the radio-ulna bones of their left arms. After undergoing treatment, the injured Kaushalya Bai lodged a complaint regarding the said incident at Police Outpost Manipur, on the basis of which a Zero FIR bearing No. 0/2020 under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ambikapur, the said Zero FIR was subsequently registered at Police Station Ambikapur as 3 Crime No. 465/2020, and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were subjected to medical examination at the District Hospital, Ambikapur, and on the basis of the bed-head tickets and X-ray reports, sufÏcient evidence was found against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the accused was arrested in connection with the said offences, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, for trial of the accused. 4. The learned JMFC Ambikapur District Surguja after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 28.08.2024 convicted the applicant for aforesaid offence in criminnal case No. 72/2021 and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28.08.2024, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Surguja by the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2025 afÏrmed the conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC Ambikapur District Surguja . Hence, this criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the applicant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. He would further submit that both the Courts below also failed to appreciate that in the present case the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 4 There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainants. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the aforesaid sentences. Considering the age of the applicant as the applicant at present is aged about 40 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2020, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone 6 months of jail sentence as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. 7. Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The written testimony of Smt. Kaushalya (PW-1), recorded on 25.07.2022, is to the effect that the incident had occurred about one year prior to the said date. On the date of the incident, the accused came after consuming a large quantity of liquor and started hurling filthy and obscene abuses relating to mother and sister at her daughter, Panmeshwari (PW-3). When her daughter objected and asked him not to abuse her, the accused, enraged by the same, started assaulting her daughter with a lathi, stick, and by fists and kicks. The witness further stated that when she reached the spot to intervene on seeing the assault, the accused also assaulted her with fists and kicks and a stick. Thereafter, when her younger daughter, Rajkumari (PW-2), came to intervene and rescue them, the accused also 5 turned upon her and assaulted her as well. The accused thereafter also assaulted them with fists, kicks, and a stick. Kaushalya (PW-1) further stated that she sustained injuries on her left hand and waist, Rajkumari (PW-2) sustained injuries on her left hand, and Panmeshwari (PW-3) sustained injuries on her neck and abdomen. Rajkumari (PW-2) and Panmeshwari (PW-3) have fully corroborated the testimony of Kaushalya (PW-1). 10. Rambai (PW-6) deposed that on the date of incident the accused assaulted Kaushalya (PW-1), Rajkumari (PW-2) and Panmeshwari (PW-3) with a stick, after which the injured were taken to the hospital for treatment by 108 ambulance. This witness stated that she saw the accused assaulting the injured persons. In cross-examination, she denied the defence suggestion that the noise of the incident did not reach her house. She admitted that upon her arrival at the spot, the accused fled. Sahali (PW-7) deposed that on the date of incident the complainant was crying inside her house and, upon enquiry, she stated that her son-in-law, accused Akil Das, had assaulted her, Panmeshwari (PW-3) and Rajkumari (PW-2) with a wooden stick. This witness also stated that she noticed several injury marks on the bodies of the injured persons. 11. Dr. B.C. Paikara (PW-4) examined the injuries of Kaushalya (PW-1), Rajkumari (PW-2) and Panmeshwari (PW-3) at District Hospital, Ambikapur. On examination of Kaushalya (PW-1), (i) a bruise with deformity was found on her left forearm; (ii) complaints of pain in the left shoulder and chest were noted. X-ray examination revealed fracture of the radio-ulna bones of her left arm, corroborated by X-ray report Ex. P-4. Similarly, on examination of Rajkumari (PW-2), (i) a bruise measuring 4 × 2 cm on the upper part of the left arm; (ii) a bruise measuring 1 × 0.5 cm on 6 the lower part of the left arm; (iii) a bruise measuring 2 inches × 0.5 inch on the left side of the waist; and (iv) complaint of pain in the right elbow were found. X-ray examination revealed fracture of the left ulna bone, and injuries No. 1 and 2 were opined to be grievous in nature, corroborated by X-ray report Ex. P-5. On examination of Panmeshwari (PW-3), (i) a bruise measuring 3 inches × 0.5 inch on the left shoulder; (ii) complaint of pain in the right thumb without any external injury; and (iii) a bruise measuring 1 inch × 0.5 inch on the right thigh were found. Her medical report is Ex. P-6. Upon production of a stick measuring 103 cm, the doctor opined that such injuries could be caused by the said stick, as per query report Ex. P-7. In cross-examination, Dr. B.C. Paikara (PW-4) admitted that injury No. 1 of Rajkumari (PW-2) could be caused by a forceful fall and that the injury to Kaushalya (PW-1) could be caused by striking against a hard object. 12. Upon comprehensive reappreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The testimonies of the injured witnesses, namely Kaushalya (PW-1), Rajkumari (PW-2), and Panmeshwari (PW-3), are consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, and they stand fully corroborated by the medical evidence, including X-ray reports establishing grievous injuries in the form of fractures. Their evidence has remained substantially unshaken in cross- examination and inspires full confidence. The plea of the revisionist that the injuries were sustained in a mere family quarrel or due to accidental fall is not borne out from the record. The injured witnesses have categorically stated that the injuries were caused by assault with a bamboo stick, which version is supported by the medical opinion and the nature of injuries sustained. 7 13. It is well settled that in revisional jurisdiction, the Court does not act as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is sound, reasoned, and based on legally admissible material. The concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or manifest injustice warranting interference under revisional powers. 14. The contention regarding absence of independent witnesses is also devoid of merit, as the incident occurred inside the house and involved family members. The law does not require plurality of witnesses, and conviction can safely be based on the credible testimony of injured witnesses alone. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction and sentence recorded against the revisionist are just and proper. No ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the criminal revision being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the concerned court forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti