1 2026:CGHC:9037-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 60 of 2021 1 - Tularam Sahu S/o Shri Manijar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Chhote Khaira, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramlal Sahu S/o Late Jagdev Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Chhote Khaira, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yadram S/o Ramlal Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Chhote Khaira, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shyamlal Sahu S/o Late Jagdev Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Chhote Khaira, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Babulal Sahu S/o Late Jagdev Sahu, Aged About 60 Years R/o Chhote Khaira, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi with Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocates. For Res. Nos. 1 to 4 : None. For Res. No.5/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. 2 D.B. : Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal (Judgment on Board) 20.02.2026 Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the Complainant/appellant herein against the judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.18/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that complainant, Tularam Sahu, resident of Village Chhote Khaira, Police Station Sarangarh, on 10/01/2018, lodged a report alleging therein that a prior dispute relating to agricultural land had been continuing between his father, Manijar Sahu, and one Ramlal Sahu of the same village. The agricultural lands of Ramlal Sahu and the complainant’s father were situated adjacent to each other at Kanhar Khar, at different levels. It was alleged that Ramlal Sahu had thrown soil clods into the 3 field of the complainant’s father while leveling his own field. In order to settle the said dispute, on 08/01/2018 at about 7:30 a.m., villagers namely Setram Sahu, Harvansh Ajgalle, Lakhan Nishad and Suklal Sahu were called to the field through the Kotwar, Sukhram Chauhan. Ramlal Sahu was also called to the spot. Upon his arrival, the complainant’s father questioned Ramlal Sahu as to why he had thrown soil into their field. Ramlal Sahu allegedly responded with filthy abuses. When the complainant’s father objected, a scuffle took place between them. At that time, Yadram Sahu arrived and also entered into the dispute with the complainant’s father. During the altercation, Yadram Sahu allegedly threatened to kill him and picked up a pickaxe, which was intervened and snatched away by Harivansh. Thereafter, Ramlal Sahu and Yadram Sahu fled towards their house. Subsequently, when the complainant was returning along with his father and brothers, Harikrishna and Vishnu, they were intercepted in front of the house of Narayan by Ramlal Sahu, Yadram Sahu, Babulal Sahu and Shyamlal Sahu. It was alleged that they threatened to kill him, and Yadram Sahu, with an intention to commit murder, assaulted him on the head with a wooden stick, causing a bleeding injury. Apprehending danger to his life and seeing the accused 4 persons in an aggressive mood, he attempted to flee. The police personnel noticed and admitted him to the Government Hospital, Sarangarh. From where, he was referred to K.G.H., Raigarh, where he was undergoing treatment. It was further alleged that Ramlal Sahu, Babulal Sahu and Shyamlal Sahu assaulted him with fists and blows, whereas Yadram Sahu assaulted him with a wooden stick. On the basis of the said report, an FIR (Ex.P-13) being Crime No. 24/2018 was registered at Police Station Sarangarh under Sections 294, 506, 307 and 34 of the IPC. 4. During the course of investigation, dehati nalishi was prepared under Ex.P-12. The copy of the F.I.R. (Ex. P/14) was forwarded to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh. Spot maps (Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/15) were prepared. Injured Tularam was sent to CHC, Sarangarh for medical examination, and the medical examination report (Ex. P/9) was obtained thereafter. The memorandum statement of accused Yadram Sahu was recorded under Ex. P/3. Pursuant thereto, one wooden stick was seized from Yadram Sahu vide seizure memo (Ex. P/4), and one full- sleeved T-shirt was seized from the complainant Tularam Sahu vide seizure memo (Ex. P/6). An application (Ex. P/20) was sent to CHC, Sarangarh for examination of the seized 5 T-shirt, and a report was obtained. Similarly, an application (Ex. P/21) was sent for examination of the seized wooden stick, and the report was received. An application (Ex. P/16) was submitted to K.G.H., Raigarh for supply of the bed- head ticket of injured Tularam Sahu, and the discharge ticket along with documents (Ex. P/17) was received. An application was also sent to Government Medical College, Raigarh for the X-ray report of the injured, and X-ray plates (Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19) were received. An application (Ex. P/5) was submitted to the Tehsildar, Sarangarh for preparation of a site map through the concerned Patwari, and the site map prepared by the Patwari (Ex. P/6) along with application (Ex. P/7) was received. An application (Ex. P/8) was moved before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh seeking permission to arrest accused Shyamlal Sahu and Babulal Sahu. Thereafter, accused Ramlal Sahu, Yadram Sahu, Shyamlal Sahu and Babulal Sahu were arrested vide arrest memos (Ex. P/22, P/23, P/10 and P/11 respectively), and intimation of arrest was given to their family members. 5. The seized articles were subjected to chemical examination to the Regional FSL, Bilaspur. After deposit of the seized property, acknowledgment receipt (Ex. P/1) was obtained. 6 Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 6. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 307, 34 of IPC before the competent Court followed by charge under Sections 294, 506(Part-II), 323/34, 307/34 of IPC by the learned Trial Court. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, no witness has been examined by the accused. 8. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment, acquitted them of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the complainant/appellant herein. 9. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that the learned Trial Court 7 committed a grave error in law and on facts by ignoring the material portion of the testimony of Prosecution Witness Tularam Sahu (PW-8), particularly paragraph 2 of his deposition. PW-8 had categorically and unequivocally deposed that while he was returning along with his father and other elderly persons and had reached near the Juna Pond situated in front of the house of Narayan, the accused persons namely Ramlal, Yadram, Shyamlal and Babulal intercepted him and assaulted him with intention to cause his death. He further specifically stated that accused Yadram struck him on the head with a bamboo stick, due to which his head was split open, bleeding profusely, and he became unconscious. It is submitted by learned counsel that this testimony goes to the root of the prosecution case and clearly establishes the intention and overt act attributed to the accused persons. Importantly, this portion of the evidence remained unshaken and unrebutted in cross- examination. The defence failed to elicit any material contradiction or inconsistency so as to discredit his version. Despite such cogent, trustworthy and direct ocular evidence, the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the same and erroneously overlooked its evidentiary value. The acquittal of the accused persons, 8 therefore, suffers from serious infirmity as it is based on non-consideration of material evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, in the counter case being Sessions Trial No. 08/2018, convicted accused Harikrishna and Vinod Kumar Sahu primarily on the basis of the testimonies of Babulal Sahu (PW-3), Yadram Sahu (PW- 5) and Ramlal Sahu (PW-6), as recorded in paragraph 38 of the judgment in the said Sessions Trial. It was argued that the aforesaid witnesses—Babulal, Yadram and Ramlal—are themselves accused persons in the present counter Sessions Trial No. 18/2018. Thus, while their testimonies were accepted as credible and sufficient to record conviction in Sessions Trial No. 08/2018, the learned Trial Court failed to adopt the same standard of scrutiny and appreciation in the present case. The learned Trial Court did not properly scrutinize the depositions in their correct perspective, and adopted a selective approach in appreciating the evidence. Such inconsistent evaluation of evidence arising out of the same incident has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed 9 reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bishnupada Sarkar and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 11 SCC 597 and Ram Autar and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2017) 2 SCC 449. 10. Learned State counsel has assisted the Court. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant, Dy. Govt. Advocate and perused the material available on record. 12. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34, 307/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the said charges. 13. So far as the offence under Section 294 IPC is concerned, the Trial Court has minutely examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Harvansh Ajgalle (PW-1) stated that accused Ramlal abused Manijar Sahu when questioned about dumping soil in the field; however, he did not specify the exact obscene words allegedly uttered nor did he state that such utterances caused annoyance to any particular person, which is an essential ingredient of the offence under 10 Section 294 IPC. Suklal Sahu (PW-3) did not support the prosecution version regarding abuses and denied the occurrence even when confronted. Lakhanlal Nishad (PW- 4) admitted the quarrel only upon leading questions and did not independently narrate any abusive language. Mahendra Kumar Sahu (PW-7) and Santaram Sahu (PW-10) did not depose about any abuse. The injured witness Tularam (PW- 8) also failed to specify the alleged obscene words or establish that the same caused public annoyance. No witness attributed any abusive conduct to the remaining accused persons. In these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly held that the essential ingredients of Section 294 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. With regard to the offence under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, the Trial Court found that none of the prosecution witnesses consistently established criminal intimidation. The witnesses failed to depose that any accused extended threats with the intention to cause alarm. Even when confronted with leading questions, several witnesses denied that accused Yadram threatened to kill anyone while holding a spade. Significantly, even the injured witness did not consistently support the allegation of criminal intimidation in his examination-in-chief. Thus, the Trial Court correctly 11 concluded that the offence under Section 506 (Part II) IPC was not made out. 15. In respect of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, the prosecution alleged that Manijar Sahu, Harikrishno and Vishnu were assaulted. However, none of these alleged injured persons were medically examined, nor were they examined as prosecution witnesses. Except PW-7, who later admitted in cross-examination that he had not actually witnessed the assault, no witness credibly proved the alleged injuries. The Trial Court observed that non- examination of material witnesses and absence of medical evidence rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The evidence only established a scuffle between Manijar and Ramlal, which was separated by villagers. The allegation of assault by a spade was not supported by medical evidence, as no injury caused by a sharp weapon was found. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that Section 323/34 IPC was not proved cannot be faulted. 16. Coming to the charge under Section 307/34 IPC, the prosecution alleged that accused persons assaulted Tularam with intention to cause his death. The medical evidence of PW-9, Dr. Ritesh Sen, revealed a lacerated wound measuring 6 × 1 × 1 cm on the scalp. The X-ray 12 report did not show any fracture. The doctor opined that the injuries were simple in nature and caused by a hard and blunt object. There was no opinion that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Independent witnesses did not corroborate the alleged assault near Juna Talab. PW-7 admitted that he had not witnessed the incident, and PW-10 admitted that he was narrating what he had been told by others. Seizure witnesses turned hostile regarding recovery of the wooden stick. The FIR was lodged after a delay of two days without satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, a counter case was registered on the same day against the complainant party relating to the death of one Kewrabai, indicating existence of cross litigation. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute the offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly acquitted the accused persons. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 13 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- "(I) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court." 18. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Appellate Court in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34 and 307/34 of 14 IPC, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 19. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.02.23 13:15:33 +0530