1 2026:CGHC:6098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 383 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Ajak, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Bhola Prasad Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Gangaram S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Mahesh Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tripurari Yadav S/o Keshav Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Raju Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Keshav Prasad S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Bhola Prasad Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.13 10:52:41 +0530 2 8 - Chhotu Prasad S/o Keshav Prasad Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Kudaridih, Junglepara, Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant (s) : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 03 .02.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Present is an acquittal appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.12.2019, passed by learned Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes And Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act) Surguja Place Ambikapur in Special Sessions Case (Atrocities) No. 79/2017, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted from the offences under Section 147, 249/149 (3 counts), 506/149 (3 counts), 323/149(3 counts), 186, 353/149 (3 counts) and 332/149 (3 counts) of IPC. and Section 3(1)(r) on (3 counts), 3(1)(s) on (3 counts) and 3(2)(v-a) on (3 counts) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short “SC/ST Act”), by giving them the benefit of doubt. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.02.2016 at about 16:30 hours during the inspection of a tubewell at village Kudarideeh, Jangalpara Mainpat, the respondent/accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and committed marpeet with the complaint Sunil Kumar Sonpipare (PW-2) and also assaulted Patwari Arvind Paikra (PW-6) and Pradeep Bharti clerk (PW- 9) by which they received injuries. The respondent/accused persons also abused and threatened them. A written complaint was lodged by Sunil Kumar 3 Sonpipare (PW-2) on 28.02.2016 on which an unnumbered FIR (Ex.P/5) was registered at Police Station Kamleshwarpur for the offence under Section 147, 186, 294, 323, and 353 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, against eight named and other accused persons. The inured persons were sent for their medical examination to Govt. Hospital, Ambikapur where the injured Sunil Kumar Sonpipare (PW-2) have been medically examined by Dr. Jagrani Lakda (PW-1), who gave her report (Ex.P/1). During the medical examination of the complainant doctor has found pain, abrasion, contusion and tenderness on various parts of the body of the complainant and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The other injured Arvind Singh and Pradeep Kumar Bharti were also sent for their medical examination to Govt. Hospital, Ambikapur where they have also been examined by PW-1 Dr. Jagrani Lakda who found simple injuries on their body and gave report (Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3) respectively. The numbered FIR (Ex.P/11) was registered at Police Station AJK, Ambikapur, Surguja against the 8 accused persons. The injured persons were again medically examined by Dr Jai Kumar Patel (PW/7) who gave their MLC report (Ex-P/13A, 14A and 15A) and found simple injuries on their body. The social status certificate of the injured persons were seized by the Police. Statement of the witnesses were recorded, accused persons were arrested and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 147, 186, 353, 332, 494 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 294/149 (thrice), 506/149 (thrice), 323/149 (thrice), 186, 343/149 (thrice), 332/149 (thrice) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (thrice), 3(1)(s) (thrice) and 3(2)(v-a) (thrice) of SC/ST Act. The respondents/ accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded 4 in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that the complainant- Sunil Kumar Sonpipare demanding Rs. 46,000/- for return of tube-well pump and cable sets and when they failed to give him money, he falsely implicated them in the offence. The other accused persons have also stated that since they helped the accused Bhola Yadav, they have also been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons by giving them the benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 26.12.2019, which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ State would submit that there are overvelming evidence against the respondents/ accused persons that they committed the offence. Merely on the minor discrepancies or inconsistencies, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of injured persons, cannot be disbelieved. The (PW/2) Sunil Kumar Sonpipare, (PW/6) Arvind Singh and (PW/9) Pradeep Kumar Bharti are the govt. employee and they may not have any animosity with the accused persons and they were discharging their duties to prevent illegal digging of tube-well. When the injured persons tried to stop the accused persons from illegal digging of tube-well, they committed the offence and obstructed the complainant in discharging the public money. The (PW/1) Dr. Jagrani Lakra had duly proved the injury found on the body of the complainant, yet the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses and the accused persons have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt, which is erroneous and their acquittal is liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 5 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court, it transpires that the there are material discrepancies in the evidence of (PW/2) Sunil Kumar Sonpipare, (PW/6) Arvind Singh and (PW/9) Pradeep Kumar Bharti. (PW/2) Sunil Kumar Sonpipare/ complainant admitted in his evidence that on 23.02.2016, he had gone to the spot and seized the submersible pump and its connecting wire in discharging of its official duty but he again visited to the spot on 28.02.2016. When he already seized the material on 23.02.2016, there was no reason for revisiting the spot on 28.02.2016 that too without any authority or without any order issued by the officer concerned. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of PW/6 Arvind Singh who admitted in his evidence that when they received a complaint that the accused persons were using the submarciv pump by digging illegal tube-well, they went on the spot and during their inception, the complainant/ Sunil Kumar Sonpipare, who was the Nayab Tahsildar took the accused Bhola Yadav on the side, where the Bhola Yadav went unconscious and fell down. Thereafter, a mob was gathered there. (PW/9) Pradeep Kumar Bharati, did not identify the other accused persons except Bhola Yadav. The learned trial Court further considered that when the submersible pump and connecting wire was already seized on 23.02.2016 and there was no reason to revisit the spot which supposed the defence person that Sunil Kumar Sonpipare demanded Rs. 40,000/- from the accused Bhola Yadav and when he refused to give the money, he took him to the side and tried to press his neck by which Bhola Yadav went unconcious and fell down. Learned trial Court has further considered that the complainant was medically examined by doctor thrice and if the incident was actually 6 occurred, there was no need to repeat medical examination of the complainant. The learned trial Court has also considered that on 28.02.2016, when Sunil Kumar Sonpipare was medically examined by the doctor, only two external injuries were found on the body whereas on 01.03.2016 when he was again examined by the doctor, six injuries were found on the body. They further considered that there is no evidence that at the time when the injured were sent for its medical examination, his cloths were not torned, however, the torned cloths and sweater of the complainant/ Sunil Kumar Sonpipare have been seized by the prosectuion, in which it appears to be a concocted story developed by the prosecution. 10. The learned trial Court after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as well as evidence of prosecution, acquitted the accused persons, by giving them the benefit of doubt, in which this Court does not find any perversity or illegality. 11. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 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 7 warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. 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 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 13. After considering the material available on record, as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious about the legal position as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Kistoora Ram (supra), and Jafarudheen (supra), in an appeal against the acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, and the trial Court taking one view, revert the accused, the version of the finding of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view for consideration, is not 8 permissible in the law. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State, against the accused respondents is hereby dismissed. 15. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika