1 CGHC010156692026 2026:CGHC:27160-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 76 of 2026 1 - Chaitendra Singh S/o Shobhit Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Patora, Tehsil- Lundra, P.S.- Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ghasiram Yadav S/o Lt. Amrit Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Dakai, Tehsil- Lundra, P.S. Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Suresh Pawley S/o Sitaram Pawlay Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Dakai, Tehsil- Lundra, P.S.- Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Ramvilas Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Dakai, Tehsil- Lundra, P.S.- Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station- Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 02/07/2026 1. Though the matter has been listed on admission, but with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.07.07 10:49:04 +0530 2 2. The present acquittal appeal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the complainant Chaitendra Singh against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Case No. 238/2021, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted from the offence of Section 294, 323, 427, 435 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Chaitendra Singh (P.W.3) lodged a report on 19.11.2019 to the Police Station Lundra, against the respondents/accused persons with the allegation that on 17.11.2019 at about 18:13 hrs., when he was in the house of his maternal uncle Sohar Singh and chatting with Jawahar, Vijay Pratap and Guddu, at about 09:00 PM., the respondents/accused persons Manoj, Ghasi Yadav, Virendra Yadav, and Suresh Pawle, came there by hurling abuses and saying that they have committed marpeet with Rambilas. They poured kerosene oil on the article kept in the threshing field and maize crops stored in the godown, and set the articles on fire. When they tried to stop them, Suresh Pawle assaulted Vijay Pratap with a danda, and thereafter they went back. They called the fire brigade and extinguished the fire. The FIR Ex.P/4 was registered, and the police started an investigation. Damage panchnama Ex.P/1 was prepared by the police. Spot map Ex.P/5 was also prepared by the Police. Injured Vijay Pratap was sent for 3 his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Dhaurpur, where he was medically examined by Dr. Y. K. Kindo PW-9, who gave his report Ex.P/17. On medical examination, pain and swelling were found on the left hand of Vijay Pratap Singh, which was simple in nature. Panchnama of damaged property Ex.P/7 was also prepared. The accused persons were arrested on 28.12.2019. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence under Sections 435, 427, 323 and 34 of the IPC. 4. The complainant Chaitendra Singh (P.W. 3) had filed an application under Section 408(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 42/2021. In the said application, the complainant prayed for transfer of the Criminal Case No. 1599/2021 (arising out of Crime No. 136/2019 of Police Staton Lundra) on the ground that with respect to the Crime No. 135/2019 Sessions Case No. 33/2020, is pending before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur and the present criminal case, being the counter case of the said sessions case be transferred to the Sessions Court and both the cases shall be tried together. The present criminal case has been transferred from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikpaur to the Court of learned First Additional Sessions 4 Judge, Ambikapur for its trial along with Sessions Case No. 33/2020, vide its order dated 08.12.2021 and thus the present criminal case is tried by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur along with the Session Case No. 33/2020 and registered as Sessions Case No. 238/2021 and both the sessions case are being decided on the same day i.e. 26.11.2025. 5. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the respondents/accused persons for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 427/34 and 435/34 of the IPC. The accused person denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.PC. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence by the accused persons of Sessions Case No. 33/2020. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused persons of all the offences, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The said judgment of acquittal dated 26.11.2025 is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondents/accused persons have been erroneously acquitted 5 by the learned trial Court. The act of the accused persons causing mischief by fire and assaulting the witness Vijay Pratap Singh PW-1 has been duly proved by the witness PW-1 Vijay Pratap. PW-2 Guddu Das, PW-3 Chaitendra Singh and PW-4 Jawahar Lal have witnessed the incident. The learned trial Court has not appreciated their evidence in its right perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion; even the injury found on the body of Vijay Pratap has not been properly considered. The accused persons could not dispute the fire incident in the threshing field of the complainant. He would also submit that the motive to commit the offence is also there, that just before the incident, another incident of marpeet with Rambilas was alleged against Sohar Sing and other accused persons, and to take revenge for the earlier incident, the present respondent/accused persons committed the offence of mischief by fire. There is no delay in lodging the report, yet the learned trial Court has considered that the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of two days. The consideration of the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents/accused persons is perverse in the facts and evidence available on record, and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside, and the respondents/accused persons may be convicted for the alleged offences. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 to 3/accused persons supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that earlier to the present incident, one 6 Rambilas was being assaulted by the accused persons including Sohar Singh, in whose threshing field the fire incident is occurred, and Rambilas has died due to the injuries caused by the accused persons, the FIR was registered for commission of murder of Rambilas on 18.11.2019 and only as a counterblast and to take benefit of the fire incident, the present respondent/accused persons have bene implicated and afterthought FIR was lodged against them on 19.11.2019. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and, after due appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused person, which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, and the acquittal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. PW-3, Chaitendra Singh, stated in his evidence that while he was sitting near the threshing field with Guddu Das (PW-2), Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-1), and Jawahar Lal (PW-4), the accused persons came there along with 20-25 other persons. They were in search of the person who committed marpeet with Suresh Pawle. They caused fire to the threshing field, tractor, maize crops, and agricultural equipment. He called the fire brigade through dial 112, and they extinguished the fire. On the next day, he came to know that Rambilas had died. He immediately made a complaint to the police, but his report was registered after two days. Before that, with respect to the assault made upon Rambilas, an FIR was 7 already registered against Sohar Singh and other persons. In cross-examination, he admitted that the allegation of the murder of Rambilas was against his maternal uncle, Sohar Singh and his cousin brothers, Sunil, Dhaneshwar and Vinod. The accused Ramnath @ Taparkeliha is the son-in-law of his maternal uncle. Various omissions and contradictions have been admitted by this witness in his police statement Ex.P/6. He further admitted that he has not explained any reason for the delay in lodging the report. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that the accused persons collectively set fire to the threshing field of Sohar Singh and the articles kept therein, and caused injury to Vijay Pratap when an attempt was made to stop them. 12. The evidence of Guddu Das (PW-2) and Jawaharlal (PW-4) shows that, at the time of the incident, both were present in their respective houses and came out only after hearing the commotion, whereupon they saw fire in Sohar Singh’s threshing field. However, neither of them stated in Court that they had actually seen any person setting fire to the threshing field. The evidence of PW-2. Guddu Das is shaky as in his examination-in- chief he stated that he witnesses the incident that the accused persons causing fire but in para 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that he was being tutored by the counsel engage by the complainant Chaitendra and in further cross-examination he stated that he disclosed in his police statement about causing fire 8 by the accused persons and if it is not there, he could not tell the reason. 13. PW-4 Jawaharlal has also stated that at the time of the incident, he was in his house, and when he heard the commotion, he too came out from his house and saw the accused persons running from the place of the incident. When leading questions were asked of him, he disclosed the involvement of the present respondent/accused persons. In cross-examination, he admitted that since it was nighttime and there was no light, he could not see as to who was gathered there. He admitted that before the Juvenile Justice Board, he had not disclosed the names of other accused persons except the accused Suresh Pawle. He further admitted that he could not tell who the persons were present on the spot. Sohar Singh is his uncle, and Sunil and Dhaneshwar are his brothers. Suresh Pawle is the witness to the murder of Rambilas, and in that offence, his uncle and brothers are in jail. 14. The evidence regarding the injury allegedly caused to witness Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-1) during the incident is inconsistent and unreliable. In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 stated that while trying to stop the accused persons, accused Suresh Pawle struck at his head with a stick, and he sustained an injury to his right hand while stopping the blow. However, Dr. Y.K. Kindo (PW-9), who medically examined him on a police requisition sent by the Investigating Officer, found pain and swelling in the left hand and prepared the medical report (Ex. P-17) accordingly, describing the 9 injury as simple in nature. The Investigating Officer also did not produce any evidence regarding the seizure of the stick or any weapon allegedly used by accused Suresh Pawle. In the absence of proof regarding the weapon used and in view of the contradiction between PW-1’s court testimony about injury to the right hand and the medical report showing injury to the left hand, the alleged hurt to Vijay Pratap Singh during the occurrence is not proved. Consequently, the allegation that accused Suresh Pawle voluntarily caused hurt to Vijay Pratap Singh is not found to be trustworthy. 15. The complainant, Chaitendra Singh (PW-3), stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that the persons present at the spot used filthy abuses during the incident. However, he did not specify the actual abusive words allegedly uttered by them. Even in the First Information Report (Ex. P-4), no specific abusive words were mentioned. In the absence of clear evidence regarding the exact words used, and in the absence of any material showing the effect of such words on the mind of the complainant or the listeners, it cannot be presumed that the alleged abuses caused annoyance or mental disturbance. Accordingly, the allegation that the accused uttered obscene words and caused annoyance to the complainant and others present has been found not proved. 16. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, found that the inconsistent evidence of the witnesses did not inspire confidence to hold the accused 10 persons guilty of the alleged offence, and thereby acquitted the respondent/accused persons. 17. In the case of Digambar Vaishnav and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2019 (4) SCC 522, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prosecution has burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and where two views are possible, arising based on the same evidence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken into consideration and the accused should be given benefit of doubt. In para 19, 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 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]. 18. 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.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the 11 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.” 20. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 21. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the 12 basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused persons is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 22. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok