1 2025:CGHC:52236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 15 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Bhagirathi Suryavanshi Aged About 35 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Munshiram Suryavanshi S/o Bisahuram Suryavanshi Aged About 45 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Satyam Suryavanshi S/o Pardeshiram Suryavanshi Aged About 22 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Delauram Suryavanshi S/o Rambharos Suryavanshi Aged About 50 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Pardeshiram S/o Dhaniram Suryavanshi Aged About 50 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ganga Prasad S/o Tikaram Suryavanshi Aged About 65 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Prakash S/o Delauram Suryavanshi Aged About 21 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.28 16:30:57 +0530 2 8 - Prabhu Lal S/o Manrakhan Suryavanshi Aged About 45 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Sunil Kumar S/o Pradeshi Suryavanshi Aged About 21 Years Residents Of Village Baldipara, Chorbhatthi, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 27/10/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20/08/2019 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.199/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323(10 times) and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that, a report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the complainant – Santosh before the Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur alleging therein that, on 12/03/2012, he was celebrating the festival of “Rang Panchami” and was playing with drums, which was objected by the respondent no.1- Vijay Kumar, who while using filthy words in the name of mother and sister assaulted him with the aid of stick on his head. It is alleged further that when Awadhram intervened the matter, he was also assaulted by him on his 3 head and, likewise Pardeshi, Ram Kumar and other women were also assaulted by him, when they intervened the matter and were threatened by him to kill. 3. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR was registered against said Vijay Kumar Suryavanshi for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and during the investigation, a bamboo stick was recovered from him in presence of Ram Dulare and Babu Lal and after considering his statement and others, the charge- sheet was submitted before the trial Court against the respondents for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 336 IPC, read with Sections 147 and 149 of IPC and, based upon the materials placed on record, the trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that, although, at the time of lodging the FIR (Ex.P/1), it was alleged by the complainant- Santosh that, on the said fateful day, he was assaulted by Vijay Kumar while using filthy words in the name of mother and sister and when the alleged incident was intervened by Awadhram, Pardeshi, Ram Kumar and other women, they were also assaulted by him and were threatened to kill. However, from a bare perusal of his (Santosh) statement, examined as PW-1, it appears that, when he was assaulted by said Vijay, the said fact was disclosed by him to one Ghisal, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he was not examined in order to corroborate his testimony. It appears further from his testimony that, on the said fateful day, bricks and stones were coming from the roof of the respondents, though the said material facts were completely 4 missing from the report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him. It reveals further from his testimony, particularly paragraph 2 that, on the next day, he came to know that, Pardeshi, Awadhram, Maniram, Itwari and Heerabai were also sustained injuries. The statement of him, therefore, cannot be relied upon, because at the time of lodging of FIR, it was specifically stated by him that, when he was assaulted by said Vijay Kumar, Awadhram and others have intervened the matter and in that process, they sustained injuries. 5. That apart, it has not been deposed by him that, he was abused by any of the respondents in the name of mother and sister, as was alleged by him in his alleged report (Ex.P/1), nor has stated anywhere that they were threatened by the respondents when they intervened the matter. Moreover, it is not reflected from his evidence that, who have assaulted him with the aid of stick. It is to be seen further that, although, the bamboo stick was alleged to have been recovered from the respondent no.1- Vijay in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ram Dulare and Babu Lal, but both these witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution have, however, not examined, so as to hold that the alleged stick was recovered from him. 6. Pardeshi Suryavanshi, who was examined as PW-2, was present on the spot, has, however, not stated anywhere that the complainant- Santosh was assaulted by said Vijay with the aid of stick, nor has stated that what kind of filthy words were used by the respondents. Although, it was stated by him that he sustained the injuries with the aid of bricks and stones, but has not disclosed the names that who used the alleged articles while assaulting him. More or less, similar is the statement of Ram Kumar (PW-3) and Maniram (PW-4) and, insofar 5 as the statement of Heerabai (PW-5) is concerned, she has, however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution version. It, thus, appears that there is not only a lot of discrepancies in their statements, but, it appears further that they have sustained injuries with bricks and stones, which was, however, not reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P/1), lodged by said Santosh. 7. It is to be seen at this juncture the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 202, as relied upon by Mr. Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, wherein, it was observed that, when a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving large number of offenders and large number of victims, then, it usually adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses, who give a consistent statement on account of the incident. 8. As observed herein-above, the statements of the prosecution witnesses are, however, not found to be consistent and, therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, the respondents cannot be held liable for the commission of the alleged offence. 9. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant