1 2025:CGHC:55819-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 188 of 2017 State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Patwari @ Rajendra S/o Nand Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Jhapeli, Police Station Baloda, District- Jangir-Champa (CG) 2 - Govinda @ Gourishankar Kashyap S/o Late Ramnarayan Kashyap, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Rampur, Baloda, Police Station Bloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (CG) 3 - Suraj Kashyap S/o Sitaram Kashyap, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Jhapeli, Police Station Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (CG) 4 - Shatruhan Kashyap S/o Lalu Kashyap, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Jhapeli, Police Station Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant :Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. For Respondents :Shri Anurag Agrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 17.11.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 29.08.2016 passed by the SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.11.17 18:01:04 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No74/2016, whereby, the respondents have been been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.03.2016 at 23.50 hours, an FIR (Ex. P-12) was lodged by the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap, who was running a “Chakhna Shop”, before the Police Station- Baloda, District- Janjgir Champa, alleging therein that, on the date of incident, at 21.30 hours, he was collecting empty bottles of liquor, at that particular time, the respondents came and started throwing the empty bottles collected by him and when he opposed, he was assaulted by them with the aid of sharp edged weapon (blade) on his neck, owing to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The alleged incident was seen by his friends, namely, Sonaram Kaiwartya, Mahesh Kumar Kashyap, Arjun and one Helper and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR was registered against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC, in connection with Crime No.67/2016 and during the course of investigation, the alleged weapon (blade) was recovered from respondent No.3- Suraj Kashyap stained with human blood on 19.03.2016, vide Ex.P-3 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Sonaram and Rajesh Kumar, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-2) and, the T-Shirt was recovered from one Tekram Kashyap vide Ex.P-6 and the articles, so recovered, were sent for chemical examination and according to the FSL report (Ex.P-23), human blood was found on those articles. The Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap was examined by Dr. S.S. Tomar (PW-7), who vide his MLC report (Ex.P-14-A), opined the alleged injuries to be grievous in 3 nature. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, who in turn, committed the same to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the charge mentioned herein- above was framed against the respondents, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there are disparities in the statements of the Complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses, therefore, the respondents are not found to be involved for the commission of the alleged crime and, in consequence, they have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap (PW-1) and other eye-witnesses, namely, Sonaram (PW-8) and Mahesh Kumar (PW-4) have not been 4 scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC on the allegation, that on 11.03.2016 when the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap was collecting the empty bottles of liquor, the respondents, at that particular juncture, came and started throwing the same and when it was objected by him, he was then assaulted by the respondents with the aid of “blade”. According to the FIR (Ex.P-12) lodged by the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap, the alleged incident was seen by Sonaram Kaiwartya, Mahesh Kumar Kashyap, Arjun Kashyap and one Helper. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashyap was examined as PW-1 and, according to him, the respondents came to his “Chakhna Shop” and were returning without paying for it and when he demanded the money, they started abusing him and went out and, thereafter, they returned and the respondents- Govinda and Shatruhan caught hold of him and the respondent- Suraj, with the aid of blade, assaulted him on his neck, owing to which, it was cut and blood was oozing and, was taken to the hospital at Baloda by 5 the persons present over there, namely, Sonaram, Mahesh and one Bihari. It appears from his testimony that the alleged incident was occurred because money demanded by him was not given by the respondents, but the said fact was, however, not reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P-12), as it was alleged therein that when he had collected the empty bottles of liquor and when the same was thrown by them, the alleged quarrel had taken place. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as revealed from the report (Ex.P-12) lodged by him, that the alleged incident was seen by Sonaram Kaiwartya, Mahesh Kumar Kashyap, Arjun and one Helper, but they have, however, not supported the alleged of his version, as Sonaram, who was examined as PW-8, has stated in his evidence that on the said fateful day, the Complainant came out from his “Chakhna Shop” and shouted that he was assaulted by someone with the aid of blade and has not disclosed the name, who assaulted him on his neck. Insofar as, the another eye-witness namely, Mahesh Kumar (PW-4) is concerned, he has, however, not seen that the Complainant was assaulted by the respondent– Suraj Kashyap with the aid of blade. Other eye-witnesses, namely, Arjun Kashyap and one Helper, alleged to have seen the alleged incident have, however, not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 10. It, thus, appears that the alleged allegation of the Complainant- Yuvraj Singh Kashsyap was not found to be supported by the eye-witnesses. Even, the weapon of offence (blade), alleged to have been recovered from the respondent – Suraj Kashyap, was not found to be supported by its attesting witnesses, namely, Sonaram (PW-8) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), nor the T-Shirt was found to be recovered from the 6 Complainant, as it was shown to be seized from one Tekram Kashyap on 11.03.2016 vide Ex. P-6 and, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the FSL report (Ex.P-23). No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents are involved for the commission of the alleged crime. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita