1 2026:CGHC:2272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.307 of 2023 Smt. Rajkumari D/o Babulal Vishnoi Aged About 59 Years R/o In Front Of Doctor Kesharwani Hospital, Sadar Bazar, Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Pawan Kumar Verma S/o Tirith Ram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o. Champa, Police Station And Post Palari, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (CG) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Apurva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : None, though served Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 14/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08/02/2016 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.70/2015, whereby, the learned Appellate Court, while affirming the order dated 20/07/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar in Criminal Case No.472/2013, has dismissed the appeal. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.01.14 18:42:59 +0530 2 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant/appellant on 15/02/2012 before the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) stating therein that she came to know a week ago that the Respondent No.1-Pawan Kumar Verma has cut the “Baheda” tree standing on her land bearing Khasra No.409 admeasuring 0.162 hectare, situated at Village Chapa, Tehsil and District Balodabazar. Based upon the enquiry made on it, an FIR (Ex.P-10) was registered on 11/09/2012 against the respondent No.1-Pawan Kumar Verma for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC in connection with Crime No.315/2012. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred the Panchnama, marked as Ex.P-6, and stated that the alleged spot map was prepared by one Mahendra, the Patwari of the concerned village, as per the direction issued by the Tehsildar, Balodabazar vide its order dated 30/06/2012, whereby, the stump (Thunth) of the “Baheda” tree was found on her alleged land, i.e. Khasra No.409. A bare perusal of the said document would, however, show that although, it was stated by the Patwari as such, but, a bare perusal of the entire of it would, reveal the fact that the demarcation of the alleged land could be made after the rainy season by obtaining applications of the parties. However, neither any application to this effect, nor any report in this regard was placed on record. But, during the pendency of this appeal, an application dated 28/01/2013 under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 3 “the Code, 1959”), which was made before the Tehsildar, Balodabazar, was placed on record by way of covering memo and, a bare perusal of it, which was received by the said authority on 04/02/2013, would show that since the adjoining villagers have cut the trees standing on her alleged land, therefore, in order to ascertain as to whether the trees were standing on it or not, the said application was made under Section 129 of the Code, 1959. It is to be noted here that in her said application, made after the occurrence of the alleged incident, it was no where alleged that the respondent No.1 has cut the alleged “Baheda” tree from her land. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that the alleged “Baheda” tree was standing on the alleged land owned by the appellant and was cut by him. 4. Pertinently to be noted here further that although, it was stated by the appellant in her written report (Ex.P-1), lodged on 15/02/2012, that a week ago, she came to know that the alleged “Baheda” tree was cut, but, from a perusal of the statement of her son, namely, Amarjeet Singh (PW-4), it appears that he was present when the alleged tree was being cut by the Respondent No.1-Pawan Kumar Verma and was objected by him, yet, no report was lodged immediately thereafter and instead, it was made only on 15/02/2012 by his mother (PW-1) alleging that she was not aware earlier and came to know only a week ago, irrespective of the fact that her son has seen the respondent No.1 cutting the tree of her land. Based upon such an allegation and in absence of any cogent and reliable 4 evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 was the author of the alleged crime. 5. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane