1 2026:CGHC:5339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 21 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Makkhan Das @ Makhan S/o Mohan Das Aged About 45 Years R/o Jajga, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 30/01/2026 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No. 1084/2020, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 294, 506 and 323 on two counts of the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Vijay Das and Bhuler Bai were being abused and assaulted by the present respondent/accused on 09.06.2020 at about 04:00pm, when had gone both for agricultural work. The respondent/accused came there near the field by a motorcycle and abused them by filthy language and assaulted them by danda by which they received injuries. One Vikas Das who intervened in the incident he too was being assaulted by the respondent/accused by which he also received injuries. On the report made by the complainant Vijay Das, the FIR for the offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 of IPC, was registered against the 2 respondent/accused which is Ex.P/1. The complainant Vijay Das and Vikas Das were sent for their medical examination to Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur where they have been medically examined by Dr. P.S. Kerketta PW-7, who after the medical examination of the complainant Vijay Das found one lacerated wound on right temporal region and one lacerated wound on left leg and gave his report is Ex.P/5. On the body of injured Vikas Das the doctor has noticed one bruise and swelling over left leg and complaining pain in right eye brow and his medical report is Ex.P/6. 3. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur District Surguja. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 294 and 506-II and 323 on two counts of the IPC, he denied the charge and claimed trial. After recording the evidence of 8 prosecution witnesses, the statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offences holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of incident the respondent/accused abused the complainant and assaulted them by danda which is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Vijay Das and PW-2 Vikas Das and also from the evidence of other witnesses, there are sufficient material available on record to hold conviction of respondent for the alleged offence. The injuries on the body of the complainant have been supported by the medical evidence of the doctor. The evidence of the witnesses have not been considered by the learned trial Court in its right perspective. The witnesses have duly identified 3 the appellant, yet on the point of minor omissions and contradictions the respondent/accused has been acquitted, named report has been lodged by the complainant on the very next date of the incident, therefore, the grounds for acquittal as considered by the learned trial Court is erroneous and by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal the respondent/accused may be acquitted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. From the evidence of the complainant PW-1, it transpires that though in his examination-in-chief he stated that when he was coming from the field, on the way the respondent/accused come from his back side by motorcycle he was having danda with him and assaulted him twice by the said danda, by which he fell down on the ground, he threatened him and abused him also. In cross-examination he stated that he disclosed before the police that he went in unconscious and Vikas Das caughthold the danda of the respondent/accused but it is not there in his police statement, he could not tell the reason. He denied the suggestion given by the defence that they have assaulted one Makhan Das by which he received injuries on his right hand. He also admitted the quarrel with respect to 20 decimel of land and there was rival claim between the parties over the said land. He admitted that Makhan Das was also lodged a report and he too was sent for his medical examination. 8. PW-2 has also stated in his examination-in-chief that when he heard the noise of quarrel he tried to intervene and he snatched the danda from the respondent/accused and then he left his vehicle there and fled away. In cross-examination, he admitted that his father was not went in unconscious but he was sitting there. He admitted that his father and his grandmother fell down on the field of Makhan Das and he did not know as to whether the land on which his father was sitting was in the name of Makhan Das or not. 4 9. PW-3, Bhuler Bai is the grandmother of the complainant Vijay Das, she stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time when they return back to their house from the field. The respondent/accused came there and assaulted his grand son Vijay Das. The respondent/accused was having property dispute and on that issue he assaulted the complainant Vijay Das. In cross-examinations she admitted that there was a land dispute with the father of Makhan Das since 30 years and the subject land still recorded in the name of father of the Mohan Das who is the father of the respondent/ accused. She also admitted that the accused has also received injuries on his hand and he also lodged a report to the police. 10. PW-4, is the father of the complainant Vijay Das, he is also claiming to be the eye-witness to the incident and stated that when his son was return from the field respondent/accused assaulted him by danda. In cross-examination he denied certain part of his police statement Ex.D/1. He also admitted that there was a land dispute between his son and the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused Makhan Das has also lodged report against the Vijay Das to the Police Station Lakhanpur and he too was sent for his medical examination. He also admitted that the property for which the dispute is pending between the parties is still recorded in the Makhan Das and the dispute with respect to their possession. 11. PW-5, Savitri Das is also the witnesses as PW-4 is stated she is the wife of PW-4 both of them are admitted that there was a property dispute between the parties and Makhan Das was also injured on that day and lodged a report against the complainant Vijay Das. 12. Considering the entirety of the facts, the learned trial Court by his elaborate judgment, acquitted the respondent/accused from alleged offences and held that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and exaggeration and they made exaggerated statement before the Court which is not believable. 5 13. 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 warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 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 as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 15. Considering the evidence available on record as well as law the laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. This Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court particularly in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok