1 2025:CGHC:11358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 312 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nisha Rani Netam W/o Krishna Kumar Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Dornapal P.S. Dornapal District - Sukma (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Dornapal District - Sukma (C.G.) 2 - Krishna Kumar Netam S/o Ramnath Netam Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Umargaon Tahsil And District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Shri Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 07/03/2025 Heard on I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing of revision. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of five days in filing the revision is hereby condoned. Heard the revision on admission. 2 1. This revision under Section 438 R/w 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 06/11/2024 passed by the Sessions Judge (for short ‘Appellate Court’), South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.29/2024 arising out the judgment dated 29/06/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ‘trial Court’) Sukma, District – South Bastar, Sukma (CG) in Cr.A. No.118/2023. 2. Brief facts as projected in the revision are as below - The complainant / applicant lodged FIR against her husband / respondent No.2 that on 15/01/2023, the respondent No.2 abused her using filthy language, assaulted her with hands and fists in front of others and threatened her to kill her. Due to assault, the applicant sustained injuries on her left cheek, eye and ear. On her report, the police registered FIR and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 294, 323, 506 of IPC before the learned trial Court, Sukma, CG. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 294, 323, 506-II of IPC against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegations and all other evidence incriminating him in the alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide judgment dated 29/06/2024, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence under Section 294 and Section 506 Part II (twice) of IPC, however convicted him under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- (In default of payment of fine, one month S.I.). This conviction was challenged by the respondent before the learned Sessions Court who vide impugned order allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent / accused from the offences under Section 323 of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court committed an error of law in acquitting the respondent / accused from the offence under Section 323 of IPC. He submits that the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record to its proper perspective. The applicant and other witnesses have deposed against the respondent / accused and therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. 3 4. Learned State counsel supports the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available. 6. From the judgment of the learned trial Court, it appears that respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences under Section 294 and Section 506 Part II (twice) of IPC, however, he was convicted under Section 323 of IPC. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the respondent /accused which was allowed and he was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 of IPC. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned appellate Court gave a finding that the report was lodged after five days of delay. No external injury was found on the person of the applicant. Learned appellate Court observed that in order to prove charge under Section 323 IPC, injury marks are not sine qua non, however, it has been observed that the incident had occurred on 15/01/2023 at Dornapal where the hospital and medical assistance is available whereas the complainant got examined her injuries by a medical Officer at Kondagaon which clearly fails the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, it has also been observed that the report was made after delay of 5 days. Learned appellate Court also observed that it is a dispute between two spouses and the complainant / applicant also threatened respondent No.2 by sending messages that she would falsely implicate him in a case. Therefore, the learned appellate Court observed in the judgment that considering the circumstances the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to their personal dispute she lodged report with an exaggerated story and due to the abovestated reasons, the story put forth by the applicant / complainant regarding injuries sustained by her due to assault made by respondent No.2 is unreliable. 8. Apart from this, the father of the complainant / applicant Hiralal Dewangan (PW2) was also examined who stated that since respondent No.2 wants divorce from the applicant therefore, the report was lodged. The independent witness Kusumlata (PW3) also did not support the case of the applicant rather supported respondent No.1 stating that on the date of incident, respondent No.2 did not abuse the applicant. Apart from this, the other prosecution witnesses Nagmani 4 (PW3), Lokesh Bhai (PW5) and Rudrapratap (PW6) also did not support the case of the prosecution. 9. On the basis of above assessment, learned appellate Court found that the solitary statement of the applicant cannot be relied upon and gave benefit of doubt to respondent No.2. The law with regard to exercise of revisional power is well established and no longer res integra in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165) and catena of decisions. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court acquitting the respondent No.2 from the charges under Section 323 IPC cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. 10. The revision has no merit. It is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.03.11 13:16:23 +0530