1 2026:CGHC:18998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 117 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Pechu @ Ruplal S/o Akalu Ram Bargah, Aged About 51 Years, 2 - Rajkumari Bargah W/o Pechu @ Ruplal, Aged About 46 Years Both R/o Village Bulga, P. S. Lundra, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.04.2026 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 30.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1501/2015 (Crime No.35/2011), whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.04.24 18:43:39 +0530 2 Sections 342, 294, 506- Part II and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident occurred on 07.04.2015 around 7.30 am, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the victim- Peeli Bai before the Police Station Lundra, District, Surguja, alleging inter alia, that on the said fateful day, when she went to the nearly Hand-pump for filling the water, a quarrel took place with the respondents owing to some previous enmity and on account of the alleged quarrel, she was abused by the respondents while using filthy words and respondent No.1 - Pechu @ Ruplal assaulted her with the aid of Basula (adze, a sharpe edged weapon), while his wife – Rajkumari Bargah, respondent No.2 herein, assaulted her with hands and fists and thereafter, both have dragged her inside their house and again abused her and threatened to kill and thereafter, closed the door from outside and the alleged incident was seen by Narendra Ghasi and others. Based upon the alleged report, an FIR was registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 342/34 of IPC and during trial, the victim was examined medically and according to the statement of Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-5), her left shoulder was found to be broken and during further investigation, the Basula, used for the alleged crime, was recovered from respondent No.1 - Pechu @ Ruplal vide Ex.P.-3 on 16.04.2015 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Narendra Ghasi and Runuram and after completion of due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, they have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein- above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3 3. 3 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that on the said fateful day, the victim – Peeli Bai was assaulted by the respondents, or was abused or, was even confined to their house, as alleged by her and accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the victim – Peeli Bai (PW-1) and the statement of an eyewitness Narendra Ghasi (PW-2) has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while referring to the statement of victim (PW-1) and the eyewitness Narendra Ghasi (PW-2), submits that since there is not only disparity in the statement of the victim, but her statement is even not found to be corroborated by said Narendra Ghasi, the eyewitness and, the trial Court has therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. The respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323, 342 and 325/34 of 4 IPC on the allegations that on the said fateful day, i.e., 07.04.2015 around 7:30 a.m., when the victim – Peeli Bai was filling water from the nearby Hand-pump, a quarrel took place on account of filling the water and she was assaulted by the respondents while abusing with filthy words, owing to which, she sustained injuries on her shoulder. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegations, Peeli Bai (PW-1) in her evidence at para 1 has stated that she was assaulted by respondent No.1 – Pechu @ Ruplal with the aid of “stick” and was assaulted by his wife – Rajkumari Bargah with fists. Since her statement was deviated from her own allegation made out in her report (Ex.P-1), therefore, after declaring her hostile, a question was put to her, where it was stated by her at paragraph 3 that she was assaulted by respondent No.1 with the aid of “Basula” and was dragged by the respondents and confined her to their house and deposed further that she was assaulted by them with hands and fists also and was being abused by them with filthy words. Although, it was stated as such, but in her cross-examination, as revealed from para 4 of her testimony, it was, however, deposed that there was no quarrel made with respondent No.1 – Pechu @ Ruplal and her quarrel was taken place only with his wife, namely, Rajkumari Bargah, who assaulted her with fists and, it was stated further that when she was assaulted by said Rajkumari Bargah, she was unconscious. Besides, perusal of para 6 of her testimony would, however, show that she was not aware whether she went to the concerned Police Station or not. 9. It is to be noted here further, as revealed from her report (Ex.P-1) that the alleged incident was seen by one Narendra Ghasi and others, but 5 said Narendra Ghasi (PW-2) has, however, not supported her alleged version as according to him, he has not seen that who was assaulted by whom and, stated further that neither she (Peeli Bai) was abused by respondent No.2- Rajkumari Bargah with filthy words, nor has stated that she was assaulted by Pechu @ Ruplal, the respondent No.1, with the aid of “Basula” on her shoulder. 10. Bhukhsai (PW-3) was the another eyewitness, as revealed from his statement (Ex.P.-5) recorded under Section 161 CrPC, but has denied specifically that on the said fateful day, the victim (Peeli Bai) was either abused by the respondents with filthy words or was confined to their house or was assaulted by respondent No.1 with Basula or by respondent No.2 – Rajkumari Bargah with fists. The evidence of Peeli Bai (PW-), the victim was, thus, not found to be corroborated by these witnesses and, the trial Court after considering these materials has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita