1 2026:CGHC:11790-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 54 of 2021 State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus Laxminarayan S/o Chaitram Satnami, aged about 36 years, R/o Village- Ghutheli, Police Station Pathariya, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) For State/Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 12/03/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 24/2011, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 the charges levelled against him under Sections 147, 294, 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated are that the complainant Govind Kaushik has obtained a Contract of Mela at village Ghutheli under Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) and earlier, the co- accused Subhash Kurrey and his brother used to take contract of the Mela. On 19.02.2011, the said Mela began and the accused and one co-accused viz. Harekchand was recovering the contract money from the Betel Shopkeepers ( पान ठेला वालो), then the complainant Govind Kaushik opposed them, then the brother of the accused Shubhash namely Harekchand and the present accused/respondent, were under the influence of liquor and were abusing the complainant using filthy language, thereafter, when the complainant was sending him to the Police Station, then the other co-accused persons namely Shubash Kurrey, Daulat Singh Kurrey, Pradeep Kurrey, Sukhchandra @ Sukhchain Kurrey, and the present accused had quarreled with the complainant’s brothers Dinesh Kaushik and Chandrashekhar Kaushik @Kali and had assaulted the deceased/Dinesh Kaushik with lathi, dandi and farsa resulting which Dinesh sustained serious injuries on his head and during treatment, he died at Balaji Hospital, Mowa, Raipur and the complainant Govind Kaushik also sustained injuries from the said incident. As such, on the basis of the above information by the complainant Govind Kaushik, on 29.02.2011 the crime was found to have occurred and Pathariya Police Station registered an F.I.R. against the accused and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the injured persons/victims were medically examined and the medical opinion from 3 the doctors were obtained. A spot map of the incident was prepared and after the death of deceased Dinesh Kaushik, the panchnama of the dead body was conducted, the postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the statements of the witnesses were duly recorded and the accused was arrested. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused person before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the present accused/respondent of all charges levelled against him. Hence, this appeal filed by the State/appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that though the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand, the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re- appreciation of evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. The learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. He further submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the respondent proves ill intention of the accused/respondent and, therefore, he ought to have been convicted appropriately by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and material available on record and also failed to appreciate the intention of the accused while 4 passing the judgment of acquittal. The learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that, in present case, every witness examined before the trial Court have supported the case of the prosecution and established the case beyond reasonable doubt, also there is no such delay in lodging of F.I.R and on the contrary, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused in all reasonable doubts. The learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that, on the date of incident, the injury inflicted by the accused was not simple in nature and the same was grievous in nature with an intention of killing him. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. None present for the respondent despite service of notice. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused/respondent under Sections 147, 294, Section 302/149 and Section 323/149 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges on this ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. PW-12 Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi conducted postmortem of the deceased Dinesh Kumar and opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure resulting from head injuries and their associated complications, and that the death was homicidal in nature. He gave his report vide Ex. P/38. Having regard to the medical report 5 and the deposition of the doctor, the learned trial Court properly arrived at the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. PW-05, Govind Kaushik, the brother of the deceased, deposed that on the date of the incident the accused/respondent Laxminarayan was collecting contract-related money despite the fact that the contract had not been awarded to him. The witness further stated that the accused was under the influence of liquor at that time. He further stated that when he questioned the accused/respondent regarding the recovery of money without having obtained the contract, the accused/respondent, in response, assaulted Dinesh Kaushik with a stick. Thereafter, the injured Dinesh Kaushik was taken by his brother to Pathariya Hospital for medical treatment, from where he was subsequently referred to Bilaspur for further treatment. Following this, Govind Kaushik lodged a report with the police against the accused/respondent vide Ex. P/17, and he duly identified and admitted his signature on A to A part. Dinesh Kaushik succumbed to his injuries on 24.11.2011. During his cross- examination, the witness admitted the defence suggestion that in his previous statement he had given a version of the incident different from the one stated before the Court. The other prosecution witnesses, namely PW-06 Kamal Prasad, PW-07 Chandrasekhar Kaushik, and PW-08 Raju Bargah, did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, they were declared hostile by the prosecution; however, they denied the suggestions put to them by the prosecution. 10. PW-07 Chandrashekhar Kaushik, on his previous statement recorded on 28.12.2011 has stated that the respondent Laxminarayan assaulted 6 his brother Dinesh Kumar and during his testimony he denied having made such a statement before the police. 11. It is evident that the learned Trial Court has carefully and thoroughly appreciated the statements of all witnesses as well as the documentary evidence on record. Upon such examination, the Court found material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the witnesses. Furthermore, the alleged eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version of events. It was also noted that no iron rod was recovered or seized from the possession of the accused/respondent. In view of these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the statements of the witnesses were unreliable and, therefore, rightly acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252 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 7 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.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law 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. 14. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju