1 2025:CGHC:53185-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3278 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Panchuram Yadav S/o Koduram Yadav, Aged About 63 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o. Late Mahettar Ram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3. Raja Yadav @ Rajaram Sahu S/o Santosh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4.Bhikhari Sahu S/o Sukhram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon 5. Golu @ Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Kutulal Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Ward No. 14 Pandepara, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 6. Rajendra Sahu S/o. Rohan Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 7. Mahendra Kumar Yadav @ Nanu S/o. Santosh Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o. Village Bhatgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.04 10:12:28 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10 .2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/State. 2. Also heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 72 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. 4. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli has acquitted the respondents No. 1 & 6 from the offences punishable under Sections 148, 294, 506B, 323 read with 149 (twice), 3 307 read with 149 (twice) of IPC and Section 25 (1-B)(B) of the Arms Act and respondent No. 2 to 5 & 7 from charges under Sections 148, 394, 506B, 323 read with 149 (twice), 307 read with 149 (twice) of the IPC holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and giving the benefit of doubts to the respondents. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (I) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.04.2024, complainant Ganesh Sahu, resident of Barduli, lodged a report at Police Station Jarhagaon stating that during the wedding of his niece with Tulsi Sahu of village Bhatgaon, a dispute had earlier arisen over serving food with one unknown person but the matter was resolved. Later, when the complainant and his family went to Bhatgaon for post-wedding rituals around 10:30 p.m., accused Panchuram Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Rajaram Yadav, Bhikhari Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, and Nanu Yadav, armed with sticks, tabbals, and swords, started abusing and threatening them. The accused attacked the complainant and his relatives; Rajendra Sahu struck the complainant with a sword, causing a deep cut on his right hand, while Panchuram Yadav hit him on the back. Other family members, including Kuleshwar, Mohit, and Deepak Sahu, also sustained injuries. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 187/2024 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506, 323, 324, 307 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, and investigation was 4 initiated. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and the respondents/accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2025, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper, and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in discarding the consistent and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses without assigning cogent reasons. The prosecution had produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence clearly establishing the involvement of the respondents in the assault. The complainant and other injured witnesses, namely PW-1 Kuleshwar Sahu, PW-2 Ganesh Sahu, PW-4 Bhauram Sahu, PW-5 Gopal Sahu, PW-6 Dhaneshwar Sahu, PW-7 Reshuram Sahu, and PW- 5 12 Deepak Sahu, fully supported the prosecution case. The medical evidence of Dr. Avkash Kumar (PW-8) corroborated the ocular evidence, confirming that the injuries were caused by sharp and blunt weapons such as a sword, tabbal, and danda. The MLC and X-ray reports (Ex. P/19 to P/24) and the seizure of bloodstained clothes and weapons of offence (Ex. P/1 to P/18, Ex. P/28, and Ex. P/29) further substantiated the case. Despite these evidence, the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and mechanically acquitted the respondents. Hence, it is urged that the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is thus perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 7. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed in paragraphs 80 & 81 as follows: “80. Thus, except for Exhibit 1 in the FSL report, Ex.P.45, received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, the remaining exhibits contain the blood of the accused. However, the FSL report does not provide any significant support to the prosecution's case because on the date of the incident, the accused, armed with deadly weapons like swords, sticks, steel bracelets, and iron tabbals, formed an unlawful assembly and, being members of 6 the assembly, in furtherance of the common objective of the assembly, used force or violence, threatened to kill, intimidated, with the intent to humiliate, and in furtherance of the common intention, attacked the injured Kuleshwar and Mohit with a bamboo stick and a steel bracelet worn on their hands. There is no reliable and beyond doubt evidence presented regarding causing fatal injuries to Ganesh Sahu and Deepak Sahu by beating them with deadly weapons like sword, stick, steel bracelet and iron table. 81. No specific statement has been submitted by Kuleshwar Sahu (A.S. 1), applicant Ganesh Sahu (A.S. 2), Gautam Sahu (A.S. 3), Bhauram Sahu (A.S. 4), Gopal Sahu (A.S. 5), Thaneshwar Sahu (A.S. 6), Reshuram Sahu (A.S. 7), Ganesh Singh (A.S. 9), Deepak Sahu (A.S. 12), Mohit Sahu (A.S. 13) at the scene of the incident on the date of the incident, which obscene words were uttered, which caused outrage to the listener. Under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to utter which obscene words were uttered, which caused outrage to the applicant and the listener. No evidence has been presented by the prosecution regarding the obscene words uttered by the accused, hence in the absence of evidence, the accused do not fulfill the necessary conditions under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.” 9. Based on the foregoing findings, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish a cogent and reliable case against the accused. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, Ex.P.45, except for Exhibit 1, does not lend any substantive support to the prosecution’s version, as the remaining exhibits contain the blood of the accused 7 themselves and do not conclusively connect them to the alleged offences. Furthermore, there is no clear or credible evidence proving that the accused caused fatal injuries to the victim with deadly weapons such as swords, sticks, steel bracelets, or iron tabbals. Additionally, the prosecution has not produced any specific evidence identifying the obscene words allegedly uttered by the accused at the time of the incident, which is an essential requirement for establishing an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of such substantive and reliable evidence, the trial court’s findings appear just and reasonable, warranting no interference of this court. 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 11. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more 8 probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti