1 2025:CGHC:59075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2460 of 2025 Rahul Kumar Thakur S/o Raju Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Naila, Bhathapara, Ward No. 2, Chowki Naila, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 05/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned 2 Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 32/2025, whereby the appel- lant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted Sentenced to U/s 327 of IPC R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 1 month. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.05.2024 at night around 8:00 pm the complainant/victim Sunil Kumar Suryavanshi, Yogesh Kumar Suryavanshi AND Suraj Kumar Suryavanshi was going to medical store as soon as they crossed the railway plat- form no. 4 at that time Rahul Singh Thakur and his three friends were sitting there and the appellant started conversing with the complainant that where he was going then the complainant replied that we are going to medical and we are from Naila, then the ap- pellant asked them for money and when the complainant refused to give money, he threatened him and committed marpeet with tone by extorting them by which the complainants suffered injur- ries, thereafter they reported the incident to the concerned police. After the inquiry, the offence was registered under Sections 294, 506(2), 327(Three times) and 3(2)(V-d), 3(2)(V) of IPC was regis- tered against the present appellant. On the complaint, the police registered the offence as above-mentioned and after the investi- 3 gation filed the charge sheet before the concerned trial court. Dur- ing trial, the trial court examined the witnesses. 3. The learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 23.09.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 327 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this or- der. 4. The appellant was in jail from 20.06.2024 to 31.08.2024 (2 months 11 days) during trial and is in jail from the date of judgment, i.e. 23.09.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the afore- said case. The findings given by the learned trial court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record conse- quently the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial court erred while convicting the appellant only on the basis of suspicion and without going through the evidence properly as there are ma- jor omission and contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant has been wrongly convicted and sever- ally punished and also that the allegation of the prosecution do not support conviction for under Section 327 of IPC. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The 4 Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents avail- able on record. 6. Learned Panel Laywer appearing for the respondent/State, sub- mits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. PW-1/Sunil Kumar has deposed in his statement that he along with Yogesh Kumar Suryavanshi and Suraj Kumar Suryavanshi, was proceeding from the railway station towards Chhattisgarh Medical Store to purchase medicines. When they reached near Railway Platform No. 04, the accused Rahul Singh Thakur, along with three associates, intercepted them and questioned their iden- tity and destination. Upon learning that they were going towards Bhatapara Naila, the accused demanded money from them and, on refusal, threatened them with dire consequences. The accused abused them using filthy and obscene language and assaulted them with stones lying near the railway line, causing injuries to the head, face, hand, and head region of the victims. 9. However, during cross-examination, PW-1 categorically denied the material portions of the prosecution story. He denied that the accused demanded money, abused him with obscene language, assaulted him with a stick or stones, or threatened him with death. He also specifically denied the incriminating portion of his police 5 statement when the same was confronted to him. PW-1 further admitted that a compromise (rajinama) had been entered into be- tween the parties. Although he denied that his testimony was influ- enced by the compromise, the fact remains that his evidence does not support the prosecution on the core allegations. 10. P.W.-2/Suraj Kumar has deposed that on the date of incident, Sunil, Yogesh and he were going to the medical store in Naila to buy medicine. They were going via platform no. 4 of the Naila rail- way station where accused Rahul was already sitting. The ac- cused started abusing them and then started beating them with hands and fists and picked up the stone/gravel lying there and threw it towards him. During cross-examination, this witness stated that it is correct to say that the accused demanded money from them but it is incorrect that the accused threatened to kill them for not giving money. He further admitted that a compromise (rajinama) had been entered into between the parties. Although he denied that his testimony was influenced by the compromise, the fact remains that his evidence does not support the prosecu- tion on the core allegations. 11. PW-3/ Yogesh Kumar has deposed that on the date of incident, he along with Sunil and Suraj was going to purchase medicine from the C.G. Medical Store in Naila. When they reached at platform no. 4, accused was already sitting there. The accused saw them and asked where are they going and where are they from. Then the accused started a verbal argument using abusive language. 6 The accused grabbed Sunil’s collar and tried to hit him. Sunil fell down, which caused an injury to his head. At that time, the ac- cused was intoxicated. However, during cross-examination the witness categorically denied the material portions of the prosecu- tion story. He denied that the accused demanded money, abused him with obscene language, assaulted him with a stick or stones, or threatened him with death. He also specifically denied the in- criminating portion of his police statement when the same was confronted to him. He further admitted that a compromise (raji- nama) had been entered into between the parties. Although he denied that his testimony was influenced by the compromise, the fact remains that his evidence does not support the prosecution on the core allegations. 12. Upon appreciation of the evidence, it is apparent that the prosecu- tion case rests primarily on the testimony of PW-1 (Sunil Kumar) and PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, as noted from the record, merely supported PW-1 and do not independently establish the prosecu- tion case. No reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence has been brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond rea- sonable doubt. 13. Medical evidence, though showing simple injuries, does not con- clusively connect the injuries with the accused in the absence of trustworthy ocular evidence. 14. It is a settled principle of criminal law that when the star witness turns hostile and the prosecution fails to corroborate its case 7 through independent and reliable evidence, the accused is enti- tled to the benefit of doubt. 15. In the present case, the material contradictions, denial of allega- tions by the complainant himself, and absence of credible corrob- oration create serious doubt about the prosecution version. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prose- cution has failed to prove its case against the appellant–accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant–accused Rahul Singh Thakur are set aside. The appellant–accused is acquitted of all the charges lev- elled against him. 18. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, the ap- pellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith 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 thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8 20. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima