1 2026:CGHC:7581-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 752 of 2019 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Purushottam Patel @ Gol S/o Rohit Patel, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Basghat Madesara, P.S. Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemsingh Patel S/o Late Karan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Basghat Medesara, P.S. Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rohit Lodhi S/o Late Karan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Basghat Medesara, P.S. Nandini Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09-02-2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment dated 27-05-2019 passed by the learned 4th Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.11 19:53:25 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in S.T. No.121/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons from the offence under Section 294 and 506B of the IPC and instead of Section 307/34 of the IPC they have been convicted under Section 323/34 and 341/34 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03-05-2017 complainant Ramavtar Patel PW-5 lodged a report Ex.-P/3 against the respondents/accused persons that at about 10 a.m. when he was returning from Pathariya along with the timber required for construction of his new house, on the way the accused persons wrongfully restrained them by saying that they will not permit to pass through the way, threatened and abused them. When they protested, the accused persons assaulted them by lathi, after hearing his noise his father Gend Singh, elder brother Pukhraj, uncle Dular and mother Kumari Bai came there and intervened. The accused persons also assaulted them and accused Rohit exhorted the other accused persons to kill all of them. He received grievous injuries on his head, Dular received injuries by assault made by accused Purushottam Patel by axe who has been taken to Durg hospital. His mother and father have also received injuries. The FIR has been registered under Section 294, 506B, 341, 307, 34 of the IPC. The injured persons, Ramavtar PW-5, Dular Singh PW-3, Pukhraj, Kumari Bai PW-4 and Gend Singh PW-2 were sent for their medical examination to CHC Ahiwara 3 where PW-11 Doctor Sushma Gond medically examined Kumari Bai, Gend Singh and Dular Singh, Ramavtar, Pukhraj and gave her report Ex.-P/9, P/10, P/11, P/12/Ex.-D/2 and Ex.-P/13 respectively. Spot map Ex.-P/2 was prepared by Patwari and Ex.- P/4 was prepared by police. The T-shirt of injured Ramavtar Patel, shirt of injured Gend Singh have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/5 and P/6. The accused Rohit Lodhi was arrested on 09-05- 2017 and his memorandum statement was recorded and based on his memorandum statement one bamboo club has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8. The memorandum statement of accused Purushottam Patel was recorded on 03-05-2017 which is Ex.-P/14. The memorandum statement of Hem Singh was also recorded which is Ex.-P/15. From the accused Purushottam Patel axe has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/16. From the accused Hem Singh one bamboo club has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/17. From injured Dular Singh one full shirt has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/18. The clothes and axe were sent for its query report to the doctor from where query report Ex.-P/26 and P/27 were received and the doctor has opined that the injury found on the body of Dular Singh could have been caused by the axe, the injury caused to Ramavtar could have been caused by hard and blunt object, the injury of Dular Singh is grievous in nature so there was possibility of death of Dular Singh due to excessive blood loss and the injury found on the injured is a head injury. For confirmation of blood in the clothes they 4 referred it to chemical examination. The clothes were sent for its FSL examination to State FSL, Raipur and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 294, 323, 506B, 341, 307 and 34 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Court Durg from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 341/34, 294, 506B and 307/34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the respondents/accused persons the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they have denied the circumstances that appeared against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. In support of their defence two defence witnesses Purushottam Patel DW-1 and Chandrika Prasad Sahu DW-2 have been examined by the accused persons. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons from the offence under Section 294 and 506B of the IPC and instead of convicting them for the offence under Section 307/34 of 5 the IPC they have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 and 341/34 of the IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are sufficient evidence against the accused persons that they caused grievous injuries to the body of Dular Singh with intention to commit his murder. The grievous injury found on the body of Dular Singh that too on vital part of his head which is completely ignored by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that in the offence under Section 307 of the IPC nature of injuries is immaterial, but the intention coupled with some overt act is to be seen, which is present in the case. The manner in which the accused persons assaulted the injured persons clearly demonstrates their intention that they determined to commit his murder. From the evidence of the doctor and the injury report of Dular Singh as well as the other injured persons the offence of Section 307 of the IPC has duly been proved by the prosecution, yet the learned trial Court instead of convicting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC convicted them for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC. He would also submit that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW-2 Gend Singh, PW-3 Dular Singh, PW-4 Kumari Bai and PW- 5 Ramavtar the offence of Section 294, 506B of the IPC have duly been proved, yet the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, the acquittal appeal mayy be allowed and the accused persons may be convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and be 6 sentenced accordingly. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused persons supported the impugned judgment and would submit that after adverting the entire facts and circumstances as well as the injury report of the injured persons the learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and sentence and the accused persons have been convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC which is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court. 9. It is alleged that when the injured persons returning back to their house along with timber for construction of new house, on the way the accused persons restrained them and assaulted by lathi and axe. It is the case of the prosecution that the timber was being brought by Ramavtar PW-5 and when he was being wrongfully restrained he made noise and then the other injured persons including Dular Singh came there to intervene. When they intervened they were also assaulted by the accused persons. 10. Dular Singh PW-3 has stated in his evidence that when he reached on the spot the accused persons were assaulting Ramavtar by lathi, danda and Rohit assaulted him by danda and Purushottam assaulted him by axe, thereafter, he fled away from the place. He denied previous dispute between them. The prosecution has emphasised for imposing conviction of the 7 accused persons under Section 307 of the IPC with respect to the injuries caused to Dular Singh PW-3. It is not the case that the accused persons have intentionally caused injuries to Dular Singh, but it is the case that Dular Singh intervened and he too was assaulted by the accused persons and after receiving injuries he fled away from the place. 11. PW-5 Ramavtar who was the person who had taken the timber in his tractor has stated in his evidence that the accused persons have restrained them by saying that the will not permit to go through from that way and then altercation started between them. When he raised voice for help then his uncle Gulal, father Hem Singh and mother Kumari Bai and brother Pukhraj came and then the accused persons also started assaulting them and by the assault made by the accused persons they received injuries on various parts of their body. In cross-examination he admitted that 6 months back he, Pukhraj and Gend Singh assaulted Laxman by which he received fracture in his leg and he is facing trial. He admitted that prior to the incident, they were having no any dispute with the accused persons and there is no dispute with respect to passing through the way. Certain discrepancies have been admitted by him in his police statement as well as Court statement. He also admitted that after the first incident the accused persons have not tried to again assault them. 12. PW-2 Gend Singh is also a witness who had gone there after hearing the alarm raised by Ramavtar PW-5 and when they 8 intervened altercation started and the accused persons assaulted him also. He admitted in his cross-examination that there was a dispute with the accused persons since 30 years with respect to the land. He further admitted ;that in the tractor Ramavtar was alone there and they were working in the field. He also admitted that before the incident the accused persons have lodged a report against them and police had taken action against them. Certain contradictions have also been abstracted from his statement made before police by the defence. 13. PW-11 Doctor Sushma Gond who medically examined the injured persons has stated that she examined injured Kumari Bai PW-4 and found pain and swelling on left thigh which was simple in nature, the injury of Gend Singh was pain and swelling on right writs joint and thumb and abrasion over left index finger which are also simple in nature. The injured Dular Singh also received incised would on head, lacerated wound and pain and swelling over left forearm. Though the injury was opined that it was grievous in nature, but she referred the injured Dular Singh to higher center for expert advice. Doctor PW-11 has admitted that she has not mentioned in the MLC report Ex.-P/11 as to in which part of his head Dular Singh received injury, even the part of the head on which the lacerated wound was found has also not been mentioned. Dular Singh was admitted in the hospital only for two days. There is no X-ray report or CT scan report produced by the prosecution to prove that Dular Singh received any grievous injury 9 or fracture on his body and even the injury on any vital part of body of Dular Singh could not be proved by the prosecution and therefore, considering the nature of evidence the learned trial Court instead of convicting the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC convicted them for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC, the learned trial Court has also considered the evidence with respect to offence under Section 294, 506B and 341/34 of the IPC and acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Section 294 and 506B of the IPC and convicted for the offence under Section 341/34 of the IPC, in which we do not find any perversity or illegality. 14. 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 a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 10 15. 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." 16. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused persons from the aforesaid offence 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. 17. 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 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 11 the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 18. 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. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the respondents/accused persons from the offence under Section 294, 506B of the IPC and instead of Section 307/34 of the IPC convicting them under Section 323/34 and Section 341/34 of the IPC is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil