1 2026:CGHC:6486-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 938 of 2021 State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Naiharsay S/o Sahdev Paikra Aged About 27 Years R/o Kot Kapapara, Police Station- Sitapur, Permanent R/o Village- Udari, Police Station- Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.02 .2026 1. The present case is listed today for admission. 2. In view of the above, the present case is admitted. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.05 17:39:07 +0530 2 3. Since the trial Court record and paper book have already been prepared, the matter is heard finally. 4. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State. 5. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.03.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2019 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial Court”), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) The complainant, Rathuram Paikra, appeared at Police Station Sitapur on 23.08.2018 at 08:55 a.m. and reported that on 21.08.2018 at about 8:00 p.m., the accused, Naihar Sai, who is his niece’s husband, assaulted his son Ramkumar with a sickle, alleging that Ramkumar was stealing paddy. The accused struck Ramkumar on the head with the sickle and also attempted to slit his throat, causing bleeding injuries. Ramkumar was immediately taken to Sitapur Hospital for treatment during the night. Upon being referred to Ambikapur Hospital, Ramkumar died on the way while being taken there. The complainant stated that his son Ramkumar died due to the 3 injuries inflicted by the accused Naihar Sai with a sickle. Based on this information, Merg No. 88/2018 (Ex.P/13) was registered at Police Station Sitapur and the matter was taken up for investigation. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused and the respondent/accused was put to face charge before the learned trial Court. The respondent/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2021, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent/accused by unjustifiably discarding the evidence of the complainant without assigning any cogent or substantial reasons. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Ratthuram (PW-2), who categorically stated in his testimony that the accused assaulted his son with a sickle, as a result of which his son 4 died. It is further submitted that Shivnandan (PW-3) stated that he was informed by the family members of the deceased that Ramkumar had stolen paddy from his grandmother’s house, which led to a quarrel between the deceased and the wife of the accused, and thereafter the accused assaulted the deceased on his head and forehead with a sickle. Rajesh (PW-4), in his statement, deposed that he witnessed the accused assaulting his brother Ramkumar on the nose with a sickle, after which he went outside and called his father. Khelsay (PW-5) stated that the police seized the sickle used in the commission of the offence in his presence. Kusum Paikra also stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased Ramkumar and her husband (the accused), following which her husband assaulted the deceased three times on the nose with a sickle, causing bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased. Despite the consistent and corroborative evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate their testimonies in the proper perspective and erroneously acquitted the accused. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are, therefore, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 8. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 23 to 33 as follows: 5 “23. The eyewitness Kusum Paikra (P.W.-7) stated before the Court that she knows the accused Naihar Sai. She stated that at about 8:00 p.m., while she was cooking food at her house, Ramkumar came there and assaulted her grandmother-in-law, Snamet. When she came out and raised an alarm, her husband, the accused Naihar Sai, arrived. Ramkumar was assaulting her. Thereafter, Ramkumar and the accused started quarrelling with each other. Ramkumar was carrying a hansua (sickle). When she was asked as to how Ramkumar sustained injuries, she stated that during the scuffle between them, Ramkumar sustained injuries. 24. In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, Kusum stated that when the deceased Ramkumar was assaulting Runmet, she went to rescue Runmet. The hand in which Ramkumar was holding the hansua was caught by Naihar Sai. During the scuffle between them, sometimes Naihar Sai pushed Ramkumar to the ground and sometimes against the wall, and sometimes Ramkumar himself fell down. When Ramkumar fell down, Naihar Sai lifted him as well as his grandmother from the ground. She further stated that when Ramkumar fell down, Naihar Sai did not assault him thereafter. Even after falling down, Ramkumar continued to abuse them. In paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, she stated that one day prior to the incident also Ramkumar had come to their house and abused them. She further stated that Ramkumar sustained injuries by the same hansua which he had brought with him, and thereafter the hansua was taken away by Rajesh. 25. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code 6 of Criminal Procedure, in answer to Question No. 99, the accused Naihar Sai stated that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. He stated that the deceased Ramkumar had come with a hansua intending to assault his wife Kusum and his grandmother-in-law Snamet, and he only tried to save himself, his wife Kusum, and Runmet. 26. The accused Naihar Sai filed an application under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examined himself as a defence witness. He stated that he resides as a resident son-in-law in his in-laws’ house. The deceased Ramkumar was the son of his wife Kusum’s maternal aunt. He further stated that Ramkumar, in an intoxicated condition, came from his house carrying a hansua and started quarrelling and assaulting his wife Kusum and Runmet over the issue of theft of paddy, due to which they fell down and started shouting for help. He went there and rescued them. During the incident, Ramkumar sustained injuries by the hansua. He further stated that had he not intervened, Ramkumar would have killed his wife and grandmother-in-law. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ramkumar was assaulting his wife and was not stopping despite persuasion. He denied the suggestion that he inflicted injuries upon the deceased with the hansua with the intention to kill him. 27. Defence Witness No. 2, Chandramati Paikra, stated that her house is situated opposite the house of Kusum. She heard Kusum and her child shouting for help, whereupon she, along with her family members, rushed to the spot. She saw Ramkumar standing near the wall in an intoxicated condition while holding a hansua. He was saying that since his grandmother 7 accused him of stealing paddy, he would kill her. Kusum and Runmet were crying and requesting others to save them, otherwise Ramkumar would kill them. Runmet was saying that if Naihar Sai had not come to rescue them, Ramkumar would have killed them. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she reached the spot after the incident of assault had already taken place and therefore could not state how the assault occurred. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 held that the right of private defence is a natural and legally recognised right available to a person facing imminent danger to life or limb. This right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises and continues so long as such apprehension exists. A person acting in self-defence cannot be expected to calculate the exact measure of force in the heat of the moment, provided the force used is not wholly disproportionate. The accused is not required to prove the plea of private defence beyond reasonable doubt, and even causing death may be justified if necessary to prevent serious harm or death. 29. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the accused was residing in the house of his wife Kusum, his father-in-law Harbhajan, and Harbhajan’s mother Snamet. The deceased’s family members, namely Rathuram, his brother Rajesh, and his mother Udbasiya, intended to usurp the portion of land belonging to Kusum and her father Harbhajan. For this reason, they used to threaten and intimidate the accused and attempted to force him to leave the village. Due to fear of the deceased and his family 8 members, the accused and his wife had sent their four-year-old son Ankit to another village to live with his grandfather. It further appears that the deceased Ramkumar was addicted to alcohol and frequently stole paddy from the accused’s house. His brother Rajesh also used to consume alcohol and intimidate and threaten Runmet and Kusum. The deceased’s father Rathuram is a habitual drunkard who indulged in hooliganism and intimidation in the village and had even appeared before the Court on one occasion in an intoxicated condition. Since prosecution witness Rajesh was sent to the spot 15–20 minutes later, his claim of being an eyewitness appears doubtful. 30. The prosecution evidence further reveals that on the date of the incident, the deceased Ramkumar was sent by his mother Udbasiya to his grandmother Runmet’s house for stealing paddy. At that time, he was intoxicated and went there carrying a hansua. Udbasiya heard Kusum shouting in distress. Similarly, defence witness Chandramati Paikra also heard Kusum raising cries for help. 31. Thus, it appears that the deceased Ramkumar, being the aggressor, went to the accused’s house in an intoxicated condition while armed with a hansua and assaulted his grandmother Runmet and sister Kusum. The accused Naihar Sai attempted to rescue his wife and grandmother-in-law, during which a scuffle took place between the accused and the deceased, and in that scuffle the deceased sustained injuries. 32. Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh (supra), it 9 is evident that the accused Naihar Sai acted in exercise of the right of private defence to protect his wife and grandmother-in-law. There was no intention on his part to commit murder. The injuries sustained by Ramkumar occurred during the act of defence, and those injuries ultimately resulted in his death. 33. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Naihar Sai committed the offence of murder. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 11. 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" 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 warranted only if 10 the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan