1 CGHC010262072018 2026:CGHC:34167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 915 of 2018 Dinesh Yadav S/o Late Ramavatar Yadav Aged About 52 Years Occupation, R/o Village Navahdih Police Station Trikunda District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Harishankar Yadav S/o Ramvriksha Yadav @ Banwari Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Navahdih Police Station Trikunda District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Ramanujganj Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sharda Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Sharda Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1, as well as Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.2/State. 2. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2017; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed and affirmed the impugned order dated 23.03.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Cr. Case No. 108/2016, by which the respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the charges under Section 435 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant/complainant lodged a report at the Police Station concerned on 27.05.2016 alleging that on intervening night of 23.05.2016 and 24.05.2016 the respondent No.1/accused had caused mischief by use of fire and set the fire to crops of the applicant, hence, the report was lodged and charge-sheet was filed under Section 435 of the IPC. 4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties acquitted the respondent No.1 from all the charges vide judgment dated 23.03.2017. Against the said acquittal the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the appellate Court which after hearing the parties finally has also dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 07.07.2018. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the trial Court being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law deserves to be set- aside. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have 3 seen that the accused/respondent No.1 deserves to be convicted and sentenced under Section 435 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the learned trial Colurt wrongly disbelieve the statement of the victim/applicant as he has categorically stated that he saw the accused while his crops were set on fire. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court as well as the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2017; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed and affirmed the impugned order dated 23.03.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Cr. Case No. 108/2016, by which the respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the charges under Section 435 of the IPC, and he further submits that the respondent No.1 has rightly been acquitted and there is no illegality while passing the impugned orders, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1 also opposed the prayer contained in the instant revision petition, and endorsed the submissions raised by the learned State counsel. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings 4 and documents appended thereto. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that prosecution case is materially affected by the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. Though the alleged incident took place during the intervening night of 23rd and 24th May, 2016, the FIR was admittedly lodged only on 27.05.2016. The investigating officer has categorically stated that prior to 27.05.2016, the complainant had not submitted any written or oral report regarding the alleged incident. The further circumstance that several land-dispute cases were pending between the parties also provides a reasonable basis for the possibility of prior enmity and false implication. More importantly, there is material inconsistency regarding identification of the alleged offender, as the complainant claimed to have seen the accused at the place of occurrence, whereas his own son, Atul Kumar Yadav, stated that due to darkness he could not identify the person standing at the spot. Thus, the prosecution evidence does not inspire sufficient confidence to conclusively establish the identity and involvement of respondent No.1 in the alleged offence punishable under Section 435 of the IPC. 10. The learned Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, has rightly affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.108/2016 by dismissing Criminal Appeal No.34/2017 vide impugned judgment dated 07.07.2018, and this Court does not find any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference of this Court. 5 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. A copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar