1 2026:CGHC:782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1827 of 2017 1 - Radheshayam Kenwat S/o Sidhram Aged About 60 Years, 2 - Lakhan Lal Kenwat S/o Radheshayam Aged About 26 Years, 3 - Ramdhan Kenwat S/o Radheshayam Aged About 30 Years, All are R/o Village Madhuva Police Station Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Akaltara District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 06/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by 2 the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.36/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 01-01 year with fine amount of Rs.100-100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 05- 05 days. 2. According to the case of prosecution in brief is that on 05.10.2016 about 7.00 AM in the morning in village Madhua under jurisdiction of P.S. Akaltara, the present appellants abused the complainant namely Dev Singh by filthy language in public place and by giving threatening assaulted him by Lathi, Danda and Axe voluntary on hands, head left lag and Thai. It is admitted fact in this case that Lakhan Lal Kenwat and Ramdhan Kenwat are Son of Radheshyam Kenwat. It is also not disputed on the report lodged by Radheshyam Kenwat against Dev Singh Kenwat and charge sheet under Section 302 read with 149, 307 R/w 34 (2 times), 450 and 148 of IPC has been filed against Dev Singh Kenwat in same Court. In which on 16.11.2017, judgment has been passed against Dev Singh Kenwat for committing the aforesaid offences. 3. It is also borne out from the record that a counter case arising out of 3 the same incident was lodged by the appellants against the complainant Dev Singh Kenwat. In the said case, Dev Singh Kenwat was charge-sheeted and subsequently convicted, thereby establishing that the present matter is a cross-case and the occurrence was not one-sided. 4. On the basis of report lodged by Dev Singh Kenwat, the victim has been examined medically by the police and the Doctor P.W.-7 Ganesh Ram Armo, after examination he referred he victim for x-ray to CIMS Bilaspur where Doctor PW-6 Ramkishan Jitpure took x- ray. The P.W.-11 Rashmikant Mishr prepared spot Map Exhibit P-5. The I.O. P.W.-9 Umesh Mishra completed the necessary formalities and after arrest the appellants. 5. After completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet under the above mentioned offence against the appellant before the learned competent Court. 6. The learned Trial Court, framed the charge against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be trial. 7. The learned Trial Court recorded the statement of appellant U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which the appellant denied the allegations and said that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4 However the accused has not examined any witness in his defense. 8. The learned trial court framed questions for trial of the case. The prosecution has examined its prosecution witnesses for support of its case. 9. After trial, the learned trial court found that the prosecution has proved the offence U/s 325 R/w 34 of IPC against the appellants beyond doubt. Hence, the trial court convicted and sentence the appellants as mentioned in the cause title. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is against the principal of law applicable to facts and circumstance of the case. The prosecution witness have made contradictory and there are so many omissions and improvements in their statement and as such their statement do not inspire confidants so as to convict the appellants. He further submits that the learned trial court has failed to see that the complainant himself alongwith his brothers came and murdered the wife of Radheshayam Kenwat and also attempt to murder of appellant no. 2 and 3 and the complainant has been convicted. The appellant herein have not committed any offence because the complainant party was aggressor. The learned trial court committed error while convicting 5 the appellants and failed to appreciate the evidence that on the date of incident the appellants were assaulted by the complainant party. According to the evidence came in record the learned trial court should have to acquit the appellant from the charge. It is therefore prayed that the Court that may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal appeal & impugned Judgment of conviction & sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed by learned trial court in Sessions Case No. 36/2017 be set-a-side and the appellants may kindly be acquitted. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments, I shall deal with the evidence on record. 14. Injured- Dev Singh Kenwat (PW-3) has stated in his examination-in- chief that on the date of incident, he was plowing his barren land with a spade when Tami Lakhan came there and hit him with an iron rod. Due to the blow with the rod, the part in front of the elbow of his right 6 hand, near the forehead on the side of his right eye and the wrist of his left hand got injured. Due to which his hand got broken. Even when accused Lakhan's mother came to intervene, the accused refused to relent, and the remaining accused assaulted him with sticks and swords. He went to the Akaltara police station to report the incident, which is Ex. P-7. The police sent him to Akaltara Hospital, and the doctor at Akaltara Hospital referred him to Bilaspur Hospital, where he was treated for approximately one and a half to two months. This witness has further stated that the accused also assaulted Milautin with sticks and sickles, and she died during treatment. 15. This witness has stated in his cross examination at para – 4 that he was peeling, and there was a dispute regarding the boundary of the adjacent land. He spontaneously stated that the partition had already taken place and that he was peeling his side of the land. In para-5, he stated that he, his two sons, and Teras are in jail for Milautin's murder. 16. Phoolbai (PW-8) who is wife the Complainant – Dev Singh Kenwat (PW-3) has stated in her cross-examination that her husband- Dev Singh, had been engaged in a long-standing dispute with Radheshyam over the land he was tilling. This led to a long-standing feud between her and the accused. She further stated that while Devsingh was digging the ground, Radheshyam started abusing and at that very moment, Ramdhan, Lakhan, and Milautin came and started abusing 7 and threatening to beat him. It is incorrect to say that when the accused started beating, my sons Shyamsundar and Ghanshyam came and intervened, and a fight broke out between them. The witness voluntarily states that Shyamsundar and Ghanshyam lived in another village. Self-narration ends. Milautin died on the same date as the incident. 17. This witness has stated in her cross-examination that her husband, Dev Singh, had been in a dispute with Radheshyam for a long time regarding the land he was tilling. Because of this, they were not on speaking terms with the accused and had an ongoing feud. 18. Dr. Ramkishan Jitpure (PW-6) has stated in his statement that he has been posted as a Radiologist at SIMS Bilaspur since July 2010. On 05.10.2016, Injured- Dev Singh, was referred for an X-ray by Dr. Rajiv from the casualty ward of SIMS. Following his instructions, the technician took X-rays of articles A-1 to A-6 and presented the X-ray films to him. He submitted his report, Ex.P.-10 which indicated that the injured person's left forearm and wrist were fractured, including the lower portion of the derris of the left forearm, without a callus. No bone damage was found in the chest, right shoulder, left hand, and right forearm. 19. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the fracture found in the 8 injured person's hand is likely to have occurred due to a forceful fall on the hand. 20. Dr. Ganeshram Armo (PW-7) has stated in his statement that he has been working as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Akaltara, since 2008. On 05.10.2016, when the injured Dev Singh was examined by him. On examination, he found that- “Injury No. 1- A lacerated injury was present in the middle part of the right arm, measuring 0.6 x 0.1 x 0.5 cm. Injury No. 2- There was a lacerated injury on the right cheek, measuring 0.3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. Injury No. 3: A bruise and swelling measuring 0.5 x 0.3 cm was found on the middle part of the right hand. Injury No. 4- Scratch marks were found on the area behind the left ear, right knee and left leg, all of which were found to be of the same size i.e. 1 cm x 1 cm. Opinion: All of the above injuries appeared to have been inflicted by a hard, blunt object, which was red in color. He referred the injured person to SIMS Bilaspur for further treatment. His report in this regard is Ex. P/11. 21. Section 96 of the IPC provides that an act done in exercise of the right of private defence is not an offence and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence to the aggressor in return. This would be so even if the person exercising the right of private defence has the 9 better of his aggressor provided he does not exceed his right, because of moment he exceeds, he commits an offence. The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the IPC and the it is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, public assistance was unavailable and it is admitted the fact that the counter- case has been registered against the Complainant – Dev Singh Kenwat and his two sons for committing the murder of Milautin Bai and the complainant was aggressor, therefore, right of defence is available to the appellants for to protect the life of Milautin Bai. During the course of private defence of Milautin Bai, injury caused to the Complainant is simple in nature. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, which materially affect their credibility. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate these infirmities and erroneously relied upon such unreliable evidence while recording the conviction. It further appears from the record that there is evidence indicating that the appellants were also assaulted by the complainant party on the date of the incident, which aspect has not been duly 10 considered by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 24. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The conviction of appellants under the aforementioned Sections and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges mentioned above by extending benefit of doubt. 25. Since the appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 26. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant