1 2026:CGHC:2535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 325 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Lakhanpur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramadhar S/o Late Shri Sukhdev Rajwar, Aged About 32 Years 2 - Ramavtar S/o Shri Sukhdev Ram Rajwar, Aged About 28 Years 3- Subal Ram S/o Shri Anki Rajwar, Aged About 65 Years 4 - Dhansu @ Dharmendra S/o Shri Subal Ram Rajwar, Aged About 30 Years All are R/o - Village Rajpuri, Police Station - Lakhanpur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.1 &2 : Ms. Aakansha Vishwakarma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.3& 4 : Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 15.01.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Judicial SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.16 10:38:40 +0530 2 Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.76/2006, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506- Part II and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2006 around 11.00 am, the land owned by the complainant- Shivram, was being cultivated by respondent No.2- Ramavtar and his uncle- Subal Ram, the respondent No.3 herein and, when he requested not to cultivate his said land, then they returned their home and when he was returning to his house, enroute, the respondents assaulted him with the aid of stick and abused him, while using filthy words in the name of his mother and threatened to kill. It is alleged further that on account of the alleged incident, he sustained injuries on his head, owing to which, blood was oozing and has also received the injuries on his left hand and when the matter was intervened by his mother- Mankunwar, she was also assaulted by them and, according to him, the alleged incident was seen by his brother’s wife and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the respondents for the offence mentioned herein-above in connection with Crime No.98/2006 and during investigation, a stick was recovered from respondent No.2- Ramavtar, vide Ex.P-3, while bamboo stick from respondent No.1 - Ramadhar, vide Ex.P-4 on 11.07.2006 in presence of Manrup Ram (PW-9) and Banarasi (PW-4). Complainant- Shivram and his mother- Mankunwar were examined medically by Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-6) and Dr. Prem Singh Marko (PW-5), respectively, who have submitted their reports (Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-9) and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 Ambikapur and, based upon the materials available on record, they have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant- Shivram was examined as PW-1 and from para 2 of his testimony, it appears that on the said fateful day, the respondents- Subal Ram and Ramavtar were cultivating his land and when he intercepted for cultivating his land as such, he was then assaulted by his uncle- Subal Ram, the respondent No.3 herein, with the aid of spade (Fawda), owing to which, he ran away towards his badi and when he was returning towards his home, he was assaulted on the way by the respondents with the aid of stick, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his head and when he shouted, his mother and daughter-in-law (brother’s wife) came and his mother was also assaulted by the respondents, owing to which, she sustained injuries on her hand, waist and backside of her body. In his cross-examination, it was, however, stated that his uncle- Subal Ram was cultivating his own land and has admitted that there is a previous land dispute exists between them. It reveals further his testimony that though, it was alleged in his alleged report (Ex.P-1) that he was abused by the respondents while using filthy words in the name of mother and on account of the injuries, the blood was oozing, but the alleged fact was, however, not deposed by him in his statement. There is, thus, material disparity in his evidence. 4. That apart, Sushila (PW-2), who is his daughter-in-law (brother’s wife) and has seen the incident according to him, has stated that after hearing the noise, she came out and has seen the respondents were assaulting her brother-in-law, the complainant and, despite of her 4 resistance, they were not hearing and have assaulted her mother-in- law as well. Further of her testimony would show that on account of the injuries sustained by the complainant on his head, the blood was oozing, but the said fact was, however, not revealed from the complainant’s testimony as observed herein-above. She has also admitted the fact in her cross-examination that there was previous land dispute exists between them. There is, thus, not only disparity in their testimonies, but a previous land dispute exists between them, else there would not have been such a material disparity in their testimonies. 5. Even the alleged stick and bamboo stick, alleged to have been seized from the respondents No.1 and 2, but its attesting witnesses, namely, Manrup Ram (PW-9) and Banarasi (PW-4), have, however, specifically denied the alleged recoveries from them in their presence. Pertinently, to be noted here further, as revealed from the statement of the complainant, that he was assaulted by Subal Ram with the aid of spade (Fawda), but neither the said fact was mentioned by him in his alleged report (Ex.P-1), nor the alleged weapon was seized from him. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon their (PW-1 and PW-2) testimonies in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita