1 CGHC010331752017 2026:CGHC:41467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1981 of 2017 1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Makhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Gram Semra B, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumbhkaran S/o Domar Singh Gond (Thakur), Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Semra B, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Semra B, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Makhan Lal Sahu S/o Sukhram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gram Semra B, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 23-09-2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31-10-2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 25/2017, whereby the appellants Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.30 11:15:11 +0530 2 have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 452/34 of the IPC R.I. for the period already undergone by the appellants and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution is that, on 15-01-2017 Narendra Das PW-4 lodged a merg intimation Ex.-P/6 to police at Police Station Bakhara that on 15-01- 2017 when he was chatting with his friend in front of his house a by-passer informed that a dead body was lying at Supela road and when they had gone there they saw the dead body. He called his nephew Shivdas and in the mobile torch light they identified that the deceased was Domendra Das who allegedly received accidental injury by which he died. They noticed head injury over the dead body and other corresponding accidental like injury on his body. Based on the merg intimation Ex.-P/6, the FIR Ex.-P/11 was registered at Bakhara Police Station against unknown person for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. Inquest Ex.-P/21 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Govt. Hospital Dhamtari where PW-19 Doctor C.L. Sahu conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.-P/22A. As per the postmortem report, the doctor has opined that cause of death was due to crushed head injury and mode of death is coma. In the query report Ex.-P/24 the doctor opined that nature of death was accidental. Spot map Ex.-P/2 and P/7 was prepared by police and Ex.-P/3 was prepared by Patwari. Two love letter and two coloured photograph of the girl has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/5 which was allegedly found in the purse of the deceased. The note book belongs to deceased Domendra Das was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8. The answer sheet of the deceased which was submitted at Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, C.G., Raipur has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/9. The note book of PW-6 has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/10. Another query was made 3 from the doctor who conducted the postmortem in which he gave his query report Ex.-P/26. The love letter seized from the purse of the deceased, the note books seized in the case were sent for its report to State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur (C.G.) for its report. On 21-02-2017 Devantin Bai PW-1 mother of the deceased gave a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police alleging in it that the death of the deceased was not accidental, but it was a planned murder and prayed for proper investigation by a competent officer. Thereafter, FIR Ex.-P/27 has been registered against the present appellants for the offence under Section 294, 506, 306, 34 of the IPC. Appellants Vijay Kumar, Rupesh Kumar and Kumbhakaran were arrested on 07-03-2017 and appellant Makhan Lal Sahu was arrested on 17-03-2017. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari for the offence under Section 294, 506, 306, 452 and 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Dhamtari from where it has been transferred for its trial to the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 294, 506 Part II, 452/34 and 306 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons/appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appeared against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants from the 4 offence of Section 294, 506 Part II and 306 of the IPC, however, they have been convicted for the offence under Section 452/34 of the IPC and sentenced for the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the offence in question. On the same set of evidence the appellants have been acquitted from the offence under Section 294, 506 Part II of the IPC, therefore, ingredients of Section 452 of the IPC are also not available in the evidence and the appellants are also entitled for acquittal from the offence of Section 452 of the IPC. From the evidence when no any obscene word or criminal intimidation were found, the very ingredients of offence of Section 452 of the IPC that house trespass after preparation of hurt or putting any person in fear of hurt is not made out. He would also submit that initially police registered the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, but on subsequent complaint made by mother of the deceased present FIR has been registered against the appellants. In alternative he would submit that even if it is taken as it is, the offence of the appellants, if any, does not travel beyond scope of Section 447 of the IPC as the accused persons have made criminal trespass of the house of the complainant without any preparation of causing hurt or putting a person in fear and therefore, by giving benefit of doubt the appellants may be acquitted and their appeal may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that from the evidence of the mother of deceased, PW-1 Devantin Bai and PW-2 Gangbati Bai it has duly been proved that the accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant and searched the deceased, they 5 abused them and threatened that if they will found him they would kill him, which clearly satisfies the requirement of Section 452 of the IPC that they put the complainant in fear that if her son would be found by them he would be killed. The acquittal of the appellants from offence of Section 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC does not automatically extend benefit to the appellants for acquittal of the appellants from offence under Section 452 of the IPC as the requisite ingredients of offence of Section 294, 506 Part II of the IPC are entirely different from the ingredients required for offence of Section 452 of the IPC. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record in its true perspective and has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court. 9. The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and therefore, the entire controversy revolves around the Section 452 of the IPC and requirement of the ingredients of said offence. It is necessary here to note the provision of Section 452 of the IPC, which reads as under:- “452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 10. PW-1 Devantin Bai is the mother of the victim and the complainant in the case. She stated in her evidence that at about 06-07 months back her son left the house at about 10:00-10:30 a.m. and came back at about 06:00- 6 06:30 p.m. At about 07:30 p.m. she found her son was weeping, when she asked he evaded to answer it and again went out from the house. Considering his conduct she asked her elder son to take him back, but he came back and said that the deceased could not be found by him. At the same time his friend made a telephonic call to her elder son that the accused persons assaulted his brother Domendra and asked him as to whether he came back to his house or not. He also advised him to search him and when they were in search of the deceased, the present appellants came to her house and started searching him and when the deceased could not be found by them, they started shouting and intimidating to bring him out from the house, they were abusing him and also stated that they have assaulted him and if he is found they will kill him. They also asked each other to search at village Borenda where his relatives are residing. The entire incident was being seen by the persons of the vicinity. Accused Makhan threatened them to take the deceased out from the house and to tear him in two pieces and burn the house. She made complaint to Kotwar of the village and when Kotwar came to her house the accused persons already went away from there. After some time her neighbours informed them that her son is met with an accident. In cross-examination the defence could not be able to rebut the said part of her evidence that the accused persons came to her house, criminally intimidated her and searched her son in the house and threatened her. She remained firm in saying that the accused persons trespassed her house and put her in fear to hurt her son. 11. PW-2 Gangbati Bai is the grand-mother of the deceased. She has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident in the evening the accused persons trespassed her house and started searching the deceased by saying that they have already assaulted him and if he would be found, they would kill him. They searched him at various places of her house and on the next morning she came to know that her grand-son has died in road accident. This 7 part of evidence of PW-2 also could not be rebutted by the defence in her cross-examination. 12. When the accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant and put them in fear to hurt their son, the ingredients of offence of Section 452 of the IPC is clearly made out that the accused persons trespassed the house of the complainant after preparation for hurt, put the complainant PW-1 and PW-2 in fear of hurt to their son and grand-son and thus the consideration of the learned trial Court that the offence of Section 452 of the IPC is made out against the accused persons, in the opinion of this Court, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 13. The other witnesses produced by the prosecution are either related to the search of the deceased at the relevant point of time or of previous dispute between the accused persons and the deceased, however, with respect to the offence of Section 452 of the IPC their evidence are not sufficient to be discussed as the ingredients of Section 452 of the IPC are not there in their evidence and they deposed about the previous quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased. 14. In view of the aforesaid consideration, I do not find any scope for interference in the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15. The appellants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 16. The appellants have already undergone their sentence, therefore, they are not required to surrender as they have already served the entire sentence. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil