1 2026:CGHC:6947-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 196 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus • Bhagwat Sahu, S/o Shri Netram Sahu, aged about 20 Years, R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 09.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Sessions Case No.38/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections 307 & 506 Part-II (two counts) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.02.10 16:10:27 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.10.2014, at about 6:35 pm, PW-1 Lomas Sahu lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Kawardha alleging that on 10.10.2014, at about 11:00 p.m., a dispute arose between him and accused/respondent- Bhagwat Sahu, his nephew, when the accused/respondent was asked to vacate the house. It is alleged that, being aggrieved, accused/respondent abused him and his wife in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. When PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari Bai, wife of PW-1, intervened in the matter, accused/respondent allegedly assaulted her with hands and fists, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on her head, nose and face and became unconscious. PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari was initially taken to District Hospital, Kawardha, and thereafter treated at private hospitals at Kawardha and Raipur. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the offence and conducted the investigation. 3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of charges leveled against him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforementioned charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the testimony of the injured witness (PW-2 Shivkumari) & 3 PW-1 Lomas is natural, cogent, and duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record, which clearly establishes that victim sustained serious injuries in the assault committed by the accused/respondent. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with the evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are reasonable and do not call for interference in an appeal against acquittal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms 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 enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 4 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the accused/respondent is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 10.The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW-1 Lomas Sahu and PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari Bai. PW-1 Lomas Sahu, complainant, stated in his deposition that accused/respondent is his nephew and had been residing in his house for a few days. He further deposed that when he asked the accused/respondent to vacate the house, accused/respondent abused him, caught hold of his neck and threatened him to life. He also stated that when his wife, PW-2 Shivkumari Bai, intervened, accused/respondent allegedly threw her on the ground and assaulted her with a stone on her head, as a result of which, she became unconscious. However, these material facts do not find mention in the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by PW-1 Lomas, wherein it is only stated that the accused assaulted the injured/PW-2 by hands and fists. Such material omissions create serious doubt about the reliability of the improved version given by PW-1 Lomas before the Court. 11.Further, PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari Bai, an injured witness to the incident, deposed before the Court that on the date of incident, when her husband, PW-1 Lomas, asked the accused/respondent to vacate the house, the accused abused him and caught hold of his neck. She further stated that when she intervened to save her husband, accused/respondent caught hold of her hair, threw her to the ground and assaulted her on the head with a stone, as a result of which, she became unconscious. However, the manner of assault as narrated by her in her deposition does not find mention in the FIR (Ex.P-1) lodged by PW-1 Lomas. In her cross- examination, she also admitted that she had not given any statement to the 5 police during the course of investigation. Such material omissions and subsequent improvements materially affect the reliability and credibility of her testimony and render it unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration. 12.Moreover, PW-4 Bajuram stated that PW-1 Lomas had informed him that the accused/respondent had assaulted PW-2 Shiv Kumari on the back of her head with a stone; however, this fact does not find mention in the FIR (Ex.P-1). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen any stone at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that in his statement given to the police, he had stated that upon hearing cries, he reached the spot and was informed by PW-1 Lomas that the accused/respondent had assaulted PW-2 Shiv Kumari; however, this fact also does not find mention in his police statement (Ex.D-2) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Such material omissions and contradictions materially affect the credibility and reliability of his testimony. 13. Besides above, PW-5 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar, who initially conducted the medical examination of the victim/PW-2 at District Hospital, Kawardha, found only simple injuries on her head and lip and opined that the said injuries were not sufficient to cause death. In his cross-examination, he admitted that X-ray of the victim’s chest and head was conducted and no fracture was detected. He further stated that at the time of medical examination, the victim was conscious and able to speak. This apart, PW-10 Dr. Atul Jain, a private practitioner at Kawardha, deposed that when the injured was brought to his hospital, no visible external injury was found and he was not informed about the manner in which the injury had been caused. He also admitted that such injuries could occur due to a fall. Thus, 6 the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of PW-2 Shivkumari and creates a doubt regarding the manner of the alleged assault. 14. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-1 Lomas and PW-2 Shivkumari and their testimonies do not corroborate with each other, the medical evidence and the other evidence available on record in respect of the alleged incident. Furthermore, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to establish that on the date of the incident accused/respondent assaulted PW-2 Shivkumari with an intention to commit her murder or extended threats to her and PW-1 Lomas. In the absence of trustworthy evidence, it cannot be held that the accused/respondent is the author of the alleged offence. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges levelled against him. 15.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, 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; 7 (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in 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 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." 16.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh