1 2026:CGHC:20814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.62 of 2014 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 08.04.2026 05.05.2026 -- 05.05.2026 1 - Narayan Prasad Sonwani S/o Late Motilal Aged About 51 Years R/o Ranigaon, P.S. Baradwar, Civil And Rev. Distt.Janjgir-Chamap C.G., Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - Manoj Kumar Ratre S/o Late Kanshiram R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Rohit Kumar Ratre S/o Late Kanshiram Aged About 40 Years R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Baldev Prasad Ratre S/o Late Kanshiram Aged About 42 Years R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mantori Bai W/o . Manoj Kumar Ratre Aged About 30 Years R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rambai W/o Late Kanshiram Ratre Aged About 60 Years R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 6 - Sumitra Bai W/o .Late Harinanandan Aged About 44 Years R/o. Vill.Ranigaon, P.S. Bardwar, Civil And Rev.Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh W/o Through Sho,p.S. Baradwar, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : None For Respondent No.7 State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in ST No.43/2012, whereby the accused respondent Nos.1 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 506 Part-II, 148, 323 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.11.2011, when the complainant Narayan and his family members went to see their crops, the accused respondents were cutting their crops, upon which the complainant party stopped them but the accused respondents started abusing them by using filthy languages and assaulted them by axe, club, hand and fist, as a result of which the complainant received grievous injuries, thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons. After investigation, the 3 charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court has disbelieved the statement of PW-1 Narayan Prasad as well as the doctor (PW-6). There are only minor omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspect of the matter and instead the complainant party were convicted by the learned Trial Court in the counter case filed by the accused respondents. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 despite service of notice. 5. Learned State counsel supports the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused respondents, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has wrongly acquitted them from the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 148 & 323 of IPC against the accused respondents and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. 8. It is not disputed before the learned Trial Court that for same incident, counter case was also pending against the complainant and other co-accused persons and joint trial was conducted by the learned Trial Court and judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court on the same day in both the cases and the complainant and other co-accused persons here convicted by the learned Trial Court. 9. PW-1 Narayan Prasad, PW-2 Manoj and PW-3 Shiv Prasad all stated that on the date of incident, the accused respondents assaulted the complainant party by club, hand and fist and the complainant Narayan Prasad also sustained injuries. 10. PW-8 Rajesh Kumar also supported statement of complainant but all the witnesses admitted this suggestion that all the accused respondents were doing agricultural work then the complainant party assaulted them. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the statement of all the witnesses and found that the complainant party are aggressor and the accused respondents have right to private defence over their property and rightly acquitted the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. The 5 finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law 6 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala