1 2026:CGHC:6097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 434 of 2025 1 - Golu Kaiwartya S/o Late Son Singh Kaiwartya, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village- Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Balodabazar, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Bhulauram S/o Shri Puniram Dahariya, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Ramlal S/o Shri Manakram Doundiya, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Tilda, Out Post Lawan, Police Station- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 03-02-2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present acquittal appeal under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11-01-2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.41/2021 whereby the respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.23 17:23:20 +0530 2 3. In the present case the accused persons were prosecuting before the learned Judicial Magistrate Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapare in Criminal Case No.582/2016 for the offence under Section 294, 506 Part II, 323, 34 of the IPC and they were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07-03-2020. The judgment of acquittal dated 07-03-2020 was challenged by the complainant by filing acquittal appeal before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar which was decided on 11-01- 2022 and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No.237/2022 before this Court which was disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-09-2025 and then the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-10-2016 at about 10 a.m. when complainant Golu had gone to Ramayan Chowk, accused Bhulau Dahariya came there and alleged that he has made fake news correspondence against them in the newspaper and got them defamed and by giving threatening with dire consequences abused him and assaulted him by hands, fists and kicks, two other accused persons also came there and they too have assaulted the complainant. The incident was witnessed by Vinodri Kewat, Harishwar Kewat and Hemant Kewat and others. On the report made by complainant Golu PW-7, the FIR Ex.-P/3 was registered against the two accused persons. The complainant was sent for his medical examination to the hospital and he was medically examined by the doctor. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kasdol. 5. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 294, 323/34 and 506 Part II of the IPC. They denied the charge and claimed trial. 3 6. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons from all the offences holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant has duly proved his case that the accused persons have assaulted him by hands, fists and kicks, injuries have been found on his body in his medical examination. Although the independent witnesses have not duly supported the prosecution’s case, but it is not required when the complainant himself has alleged the accused persons that they committed marpeet with him. There is no reason for false implication of the accused persons, yet the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons by giving them benefit of doubt, which is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that after appreciation of the evidence the learned trial Court has passed the judgment. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. PW-7 is the complainant who stated in his evidence that on 27-10-2016 when he went to Ramayan Chowk, the accused persons came there and alleged that he being the journalist published news articles against them by which they are defamed and assaulted him by hands, fists and kicks. They also threatened him and abused him. The incident was witnessed by other 4 persons of the vicinity. In cross-examination certain discrepancies have been taken out by the defence with respect to his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Ex.- P/3. He made a report that the accused persons came there by alleging that he being a journalist published the fake news against them, however, there is no document with respect to he being the journalist, or he published any news against the accused persons. There are also certain discrepancies in the obscene words during abusing the complainant. Further, to prove the injuries found on the body of the complainant the prosecution could not examine the doctor who medically examined the complainant. The other witnesses PW-1 Vinodri, PW-2 Rajbai, PW-3 Harishwar and PW-4 Hemant Kumar have completely turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. From the FIR lodged by the complainant PW-7 Golu, PW-1 to PW-4 were eye-witnesses of the incident, but they have not supported the prosecution’s case and completely turned hostile. In such state of affairs and facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court by giving the accused persons benefit of doubt acquitted them from the alleged offence. 12. Having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence led by the prosecution, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court which appears to be proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under; "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the 5 accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 14. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 15. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons after giving them the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in their court evidence makes the prosecution case suspicious and is not credible. 16. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Jafarudheen (supra) and Kistoora Ram (supra) that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on 6 the basis by the evidence laid by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion on the finding of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 17. From careful perusal of the record, this Court does not find any perversity in the consideration of the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3/accused persons from the aforesaid offence is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil