1 2026:CGHC:7725-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 04.02.2026 12.02.2026 -- 12.02.2026 ACQA No. 1084 of 2024 Chetan Prasad Dewangan S/o Chandra Kumar Dewangan ,aged about 53 years, R/o Umreli, Police Station Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ramlal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Sadhuram Dewangan, aged about 72 years, R/o Umreli, P.S. Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Santosh Dewangan S/o Ramlal Dewangan, aged about 36 years, R/o Umreli, P.S. Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Laxmi Nivas Dewangan S/o Ramlal Dewangan, aged about 41 years, R/o Umreli, P.S. Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Krishna Bai Dewangan W/o Ramlal Dewangan, aged about 65 years, R/o Umreli, P.S. Urga, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Appellant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate. For State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J. C.A.V. Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.06.2024 passed by the learned First Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korba District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 19/2020, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 294, 506-B, 307 of IPC and under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan had filed F.I.R. vide Ex. P/01 against the accused/respondents viz. Ram Lal Dewangan, Santosh Dewangan, Laxmi Nivas Dewangan and Krishna Bai Dewangan and daughter-in- law of Ram Lal Dewangan that on 10.11.2019 at about 4:00 pm the accused/respondents assaulted the complainant and his father by pole axe (gandasa) regarding subsisting enmity of land between them. The complainant then went to the Urga Police Station and the aforesaid report was lodged in the Rojnamcha Sanha No. 21 on 10.11.2019 and then the complainant and his father were sent for medical examination. The complainant then apprised the fact to the police that the entire fateful incident was recorded in the CCTV camera of his medical store. During the course of investigation it was found from the statement of the complainant and the witnesses that upon inspection of the CCTV 3 camera footage, the accused Ram Lal Dewangan on the date of the incident with an intention to kill the complainant has inflicted blows upon him using pole axe which was in his possession and the accused persons abused him and his father using filthy language and threatened them to kill and then by their fists and legs landed blows to the complainant and his father. Thereafter, at the instance of Chandra Kumar Dewangan, the weapon used in the incident was seized and the D.V.R. of the CCTV camera which was installed at the medical store was recovered and the blood stained clothes of the complainant and his father was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/07, Ex. P/09 and Ex. P/16 respectively. 3. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the accused/respondents before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, thereafter the matter was committed to learned First Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korba District Korba (C.G.) and the accused/respondents for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused Ram Lal Dewangan of offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, but convicted him for offence under Sections 294, 506-B and 323 of IPC. The other accused persons viz. Santosh Dewangan, Lakshmi Nivas Dewangan, Krishna Bai Dewangan were acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B of IPC, but they were convicted for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the material available on record and the injuries 4 received upon the injured persons, which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate this fact that at the time of the incident, four accused/respondents have assaulted upon the injured persons by sharp pole axe which is a grievous offence in nature, despite that the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the aforesaid charges without considering the material available on record vide its acquittal judgment dated 14.06.2024 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence the same is liable to be set aside and also the accused persons deserves to be convicted for the same. During the course of investigation, the police has found that the injuries of the injured persons were of criminal nature and offence, hence after completion of investigation, the police has registered F.I.R against the accused persons, but the learned trial has passed acquittal order which is against the law. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of witnesses and due to this, acquitted the respondents of the aforementioned offence which is against the law. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of acquittal and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 13.07.2005 in the matter of State of M.P. v. Saleem alias Chamaru and Anr. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 554. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for accused/respondents supported the impugned judgment and submits that looking to the medical report and statement of the doctors, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted 5 the respondents of the aforesaid charges under Section 323 of IPC, as such the impugned judgment is well merited, warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the State supported the argument of the appellant and submits that accused may be convicted under Section 307 of IPC. He further submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/respondents and all prosecution witnesses have categorically stated against the accused persons/respondents. So, the accused/respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC instead of Section 323 of IPC. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the accused Ram Lal Dewangan of offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 307, 506-B of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act and against the other accused persons viz. Santosh Dewangan, Lakshmi Nivas Dewangan, Krishna Bai Dewangan the charges were framed of offence under Sections 294, 323/34, and 506- B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Ram Lal Dewangan of offence under Sections 294, 506-B and 323 of IPC and rest of the accused were convicted for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them as described in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. PW-01, Chetan Prasad Dewangan, the complainant has stated that on 10.11.2019, at the time of the incident, he went to the vegetable market 6 and was sitting near Vishnu Bareth to buy vegetables, all of sudden he was assaulted by Ram Lal on his neck with a sharp weapon for 03-04 times due to which he sustained injuries on his left leg and was bleeding profusely. Although, the complainant attempted to defend himself, Ramlal Dewangan intervened by grabbing him; subsequently, both individuals fell from the medical campus, then the father of the complainant who was sitting near the medical campus came for his rescue to which Smt. Krishna Bai wife of Ram Lal started slapping and hitting the complainant’s father with slippers. Ram Lal held the legs of the complainant tightly and the complainant was trying his best to get away from him, but the accused held him more tightly and was trying to hold the testicles of the complainant. The complainant lodged F.I.R. vide Ex. P/01, panchnama of CCTV camera footage is Ex. P/05 and the Investigating Officer demanded DVR hard disk from CCTV camera footage and seized DVR hard disk as per seizure panchnama Ex. P/06. 11. PW-08 Dr. B.K. Jhaleriya has examined the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan on 10.11.2019 and found one injury on his left knee, multiple contusions on his back and one abrasion on left elbow, he advised the complainant for X-Ray and gave his report vide Ex. P/27. He also examined the complainant’s father viz. Chandrakumar Dewangan and gave his report vide Ex. P/28 and as per Ex. P/28 all injuries are simple in nature. He also answered query report vide Ex. P/29 and as per this report, no bone injury was found in X-Ray report of the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination, the witness admitted to the defence's suggestion 7 that Chetan Prasad Dewangan’s injuries are simple in nature and are not dangerous to life. 12. PW-06 Dr. Harishankar Agrawal has stated that on 18.12.2019 he operated the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan and found that the complainant’s ligament was cut and the same was treated by him and later he discharged the complainant on 20.12.2019 and gave his report vide Ex. P/12. In para 05 of his cross-examination he stated that on 18.12.2019 the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan came alone to him for his treatment. When asked about the cause of the injury, the complainant told the witness that he had already filed a police report and was only there for treatment. The witness admitted to not reviewing the complainant’s past medical records and was unable to identify the weapon used on the knee. 13. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statement of the complainant and the statement of both the doctors. PW-08 Dr. B.K. Jhaleria had clearly admitted that the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and are not dangerous to life. 14. PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has stated that on 23.11.2019 he prepared MRI report of the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan and found knee joint fracture and gave his report vide Ex. P/33. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he had prepared report as per photo sent by MRI Center, but in para 03 of his cross-examination he admitted that the injury in his report could have resulted from a fall and further stated that he had not physically examined the complainant. The learned trial Court, after minutely appreciating the statements of all doctors, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the weapon with 8 which the accused assaulted the complainant, however PW-08 Dr. B.K. Jhaleria opined that the injuries caused to the complainant were by a hard and blunt object. He further opined that the injuries were simple in nature, involved no fractures, and were not dangerous to life. 15. PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta had opined vide his report Ex. P/33 that he found fracture in left knee of the complainant, but he has stated that he prepared report on the basis of MRI photo and further admitted that he has not physically examined the complainant. It is evident from F.I.R (Ex. P/01) and other relevant documents that the incident took place on 10.11.2019 and PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Gupta had prepared report on 23.11.2019. The injured sustained these injuries on 10.11.2019 and the same was not proved by the prosecution. It is also clear from the record that PW-08 Dr. B.K. Jhaleria referred the injured Chetan Prasad Dewangan for X-Ray and in X-Ray report he did not find any fracture and as per PW-06 Dr. Harishankar Agrawal operated the complainant Chetan Prasad Dewangan on 20.12.2019 and gave his report vide Ex. P/12 and admitted this suggestion of defence that he did not inspect any old record of the injured or the injured himself went to Doctor and he cannot say by which weapon the injury was caused to the knee. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove this fact that after 10.11.2019 to 20.12.2019 the injured was continuously suffering from pain and injury and the operation dated 20.12.2019 was for same injury which he suffered on 10.11.2019, but no document or medical certificate was produced by the prosecution in this regard and PW-08 Dr. B.K. Jhaleria after examining the X-Ray of the injured clearly opined that the injuries are not dangerous to life and all the injuries of the complainant are simple in nature. 9 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sivamani Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police held in para 09 which reads as under:- “09. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non- conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘...The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, “The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’ 17. In the light of above judgment, in the present case also the learned trial Court rightly finds that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the accused Ram Lal Dewangan as there was no intention or knowledge proved by the prosecution that it could cause death and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him for offence under Section 323 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC. So far as the other accused persons are concerned they have also been rightly convicted for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including the medical 10 evidence. 18. As such, this appeal being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju