1 2026:CGHC:13915-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 831 of 2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Gannu Dhimar S/o Mukesh Dhimar Aged About 22 Years R/o In Front Of Bajrang Bali Mandir, Ward No. 35, Shivpara, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Surendra @ Bhuru Dhimar S/o Late Rajendra Dhimar Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Saat Imli Pedh, Ward No. 33, Shivpara, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Aryan @ Chitra @ Nishant Yadav S/o Late Raju Yadav Aged About 18 Years And 5 Months, R/o Near Saat Imli Pedh, Ward No. 33, Shivpara, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J. 24/03/2026 1. This is an application under section 419(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner/State for grant of leave VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.02 10:50:48 +0530 2 to appeal. The present application has been filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2025, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2024, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of sections 307/34 and 294 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.12.2023, the complainant- Maya Dheemar (PW-1) lodged a report to the police that on 26.12.2023, at about 10:00 p.m. the respondents/accused persons started altercation with them in front of their house, which culminated into marpeet by them by hand and fists and the respondents/accused persons Surendra @ Bhuru Dheemar and Chitara @ Aryan gave blows by bamboo club and the respondent/accused Gannu Dheemar assaulted him by a knife. By the assault made by the accused persons, the injured- Mahendra @ Lalla Dheemar received grievous injuries and he was immediately been taken to the Durg Hospital. The police has recorded the FIR against the respondents/accused persons for the offence under sections 294, 324, 307 and 34 of IPC. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On medically examined, the injured Mahendra Dheemar, the doctor has found one lacerated wound on the frontal region of head and one stab wound on the lumber region and opined that the injury No.1 is simple and injury No. 2 is grievous in nature. The accused persons were arrested and the weapons of offence have been seized from them. 3. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. The case was committed 3 to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Durg from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. The charge for the offence under sections 294, 324, 307 and 34 of IPC were framed, which have been denied by the accused persons by claiming trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. 4. After recording statement of the accused persons under section 313 of CrPC and hearing them, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons from all the offences by holding that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondents/accused persons have committed the offence. Hence this acquittal appeal along with the application for grant of leave to file the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, there is sufficient evidence on record, which prima facie shows the involvement of the accused persons in the offence in question. The injured- Mahendra Dheemar @ Lalla (PW-5) has wrongly been disbelieved only on the ground that at the time of his treatment he disclosed that he was being assaulted by some unknown persons. He being the victim has duly identified the accused persons who have caused injuries to him. The other witnesses, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, have also duly supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence are supported by the medical evidence. He would further submit that the weapons of offence have been seized from the accused persons, in which blood was found in the FSL report for which there is no explanation from the respondents/accused persons. The prosecution 4 has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but on the minor discrepancies in the evidences, the learned trial Court had given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them. The impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the application for grant of leave. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the application for grant of leave to file the acquittal appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court has considered that there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant with the other witnesses. The complainant himself has disclosed at the time of his medical examination that he was being assaulted by some unknown persons, whereas he subsequently exaggerated and implicate the accused persons as the assailants. It has also been considered that, he was well acquainted with the accused persons as they are the resident of the same vicinity. Further, causing injury by the present accused persons is also doubtful as the witnesses in their evidence before the learned Juvenile Justice Board made allegation that, it is the juvenile in conflict with law, who caused the knife injury to the injured. Further, they have the motive for false implication of the accused persons that Surendra Dheemar is not vacating their rented house and also that there is no independent witness in the case. 5 8. We again gone through the record produced by the petitioner in the present petition. It reveals that Mahendra Dheemar (PW-5), who is injured in the case, though have supported the injuries received by him and alleged that it was caused by the accused persons, however in cross-examination he deposed that that he did not know as to whether he disclosed before the doctor that he was being assaulted by some unknown persons. In his further cross-examination, he admitted the previous dispute with the accused persons and admitted that he has given his evidence before the Juvenile Justice Board and copy of his evidence is exhibit D-5. In the document (exhibit D-5), he admitted that there is no dispute with the accused persons. Before the learned Sessions Court, the injured Mahendra Dheemar (PW-5) stated that he has a dispute with the accused persons. There are two contradictory statements made by the injured Mahendra Dheemar in two different places. He also admitted that he too has assaulted the accused persons. 9. From perusal of the MLC report of the injured- Mahendra Dheemar (exhibit P-22), the history of assault is given as ‘assault by some unknown persons’, which is contrary to the evidence made by the injured. The document (exhibit P-22) is proved by PW-8/Dr. Vaibhav Rathi, he stated that at the time of his medical examination, the injured was conscious. When the injured has disclosed on the first occasion that he was being assaulted by the unknown persons, subsequently implicating the accused persons is not free from doubt and the evidence create a suspicion on the prosecution's case with respect to 6 the involvement of the accused persons, particularly when the reasons for false implication have been introduced by the defence. 10. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of Maya Dheemar (PW-1), Kunwar Singh (PW-2), Ganeshi Dheemar (PW-3) and Ishwar Dheemar (PW-4) and the discrepancies in their evidences. The learned trial Court has also considered that PW-2, PW-3 and PW- 4 had given a different version of incident before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, and therefore their evidence cannot be believed. 11. Though certain injuries have been found on the body of the injured, which has been proved by the doctor, however, the involvement of the present accused persons are found to be suspicious and by giving benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/ accused persons. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution has burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if two views are possible, arising on the same evidence, the view which is favorable to the accused, should be taken into consideration and the accused should be given benefit of doubt. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar Vaishnav and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522 and it has been held that: “19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other is to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. This principle has a special 7 relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence [See Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808].” 12. From the overall evidence produced by the prosecution and considering the well-reasoned finding of the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents/accused persons, we do not find any perversity or infirmity, which makes the impugned judgment liable to be set aside. 13. 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." 14. Further, in case of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 8 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 of the 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 analyzed 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." 15. Considering the evidence available on record as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, particularly with regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal and the settled principle that when two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused is to be adopted, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish any perversity, illegality or manifest error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded by 9 the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be unreasonable or improbable so as to warrant interference by this Court. 16. Consequently, no case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2024 is made out. The application for grant of leave to appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the acquittal appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved