1 2026:CGHC:9176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.89 of 2023 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Saja, District - Bemetrara (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus Ramkumar Dehre S/o. Shri Soubla Dehre, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Gahira Nawagaon, Police Station - Saja, District - Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.GA For Respondent(s) : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 20/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 16/09/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) in C.I.S.No.146/2018, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 323 of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, it appears that the complainant-Sanat Kumar Vaishnav has supplied the building materials for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- to one Narad Satnami through the respondent-Ram SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.02.20 18:24:41 +0530 2 Kumar Dehre and out of which, Rs.61,000/- was paid by said Narad Satnami, but rest of the amount was not paid by him, therefore, a meeting was convened in the village on 15/03/2018 around 9.30 AM, where the complainant was abused by the respondent, who while using filthy words in the name of mother and sister, has threatened to kill and with the aid of bamboo stick assaulted him, owing to which, he sustained injuries on thigh, forehead and also on his head. 3. Based upon the alleged allegations, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the respondent and was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, has held that since there are disparity in the statement of complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses, therefore, it cannot be said that on the said fateful day, the complainant was assaulted as such by the respondent, while using filthy words. In consequence, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent was not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statements of the complainant-Sanat Kumar Vaishnav (PW-1) and Saheb Das Manikpuri (PW-2), have not 3 been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the concerned trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that a meeting was convened in the village on 15/03/2018 around 09.30 AM, where some quarrel occurred between the complainant-Sanat Kumar Vaishnav and the respondent-Ram Kumar Dehre. According to the statement of the complainant-Sanat Kumar Vaishnav (PW-1), it appears that he has supplied building materials to one Narad Satnami through the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-, out of which, only Rs.61,000/- was paid by him (Narad Satnami) and, since the rest of the amount was not paid, a meeting was, therefore, convened in the village on the said fateful day, where the respondent, while abusing in the name of mother and sister, has threatened to kill him and assaulted with the aid of bamboo stick, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his forehead, thigh and head, apart from the fingers of his right hand. Although, it was deposed by him as such, but his statement is, however, not found to be supported by other prosecution witnesses as Saheb Das Manikpuri (PW-2), who was also present in the alleged meeting, was unable to state that who was the aggressor and, in fact, he has seen the alleged incident far from it. Itwari Satnami (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that in the alleged meeting, the complainant was assaulted by 4 the respondent with the aid of stick on fingers of his hand, owing to which, blood was oozing, but, in his cross-examination, he has failed to support the alleged version of the complainant, as he has not seen the alleged incident, nor was aware anything regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident. 9. Gend Ram Yadu (PW-3), has not seen that the complainant was assaulted by the respondent. It, thus, appears from the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that though the complainant has stated in his evidence that he was abused by the respondent on the said fateful day in the name of mother and sister and was threatened to kill, but the alleged of his version was, however, not stated by others, i.e. Saheb Das Manikpuri (PW-2), Gend Ram Yadu (PW-3) and Itwari Satnami (PW-4). Even, the attesting witnesses of seizure of bamboo stick from the respondent vide Ex.P-3, namely, Bharat Satnami (PW-5) and Lekhpal (PW-6), have failed to support the same. 10. In view thereof, no cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in the alleged crime, as alleged by the complainant in his report lodged on 15/03/2018. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane