1 2026:CGHC:6158-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 288 of 2018  State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Police Station Chhawani, District Durg (C.G.). ---- Appellant Versus  Vijay Sahu @ Takanni, S/o Jitendra Sahu, aged about 35 years, resident of Shardapara, New Ganesh Chowk, Near Hanuman Mandir, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Tarun Dansena, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal (Order on Board) 04.02.2026 Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the 2 State/appellant herein against the judgment dated 18.01.2018 passed in Sessions Trial CIS No.155/2016 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused/respondent under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.2000/-, acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506, 307 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) (B)/27 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2016, complainant Rekha Patil (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station Chhawni to the effect that on 16.05.2016 at 7.30 AM while she was returning from the grocery shop, the accused/respondent who was standing on the road infront of the house of complainant holding knife and sword in his hand said the complainant let her son come out else he would kill her. When the complainant asked as to why he would kill, the accused hurled filthy abuses in the name of mother and sister & stabbed her with knife with intent to kill her. While the complainant was defending herself, she sustained injury to her right hand and blood started oozing and she went to her house running. The accused also assaulted Satyam (PW-3) who was standing in front of his 3 house, with sword on his abdomen and hand which caused bleeding. On the basis of this report, an FIR being Crime No.299/2016 was registered under Ex.P-1 by Karan Sonkar (PW-10), Assistant Sub Inspector. Further case of the prosecution is that, after the incident, Rakesh Joshi (PW-9), Inspector, prepared spot map vide Ex.P-2. Spot map was also prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-3. Blood stained and plain cement were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-9. Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P-5, pursuant to which a sword and knife stained with blood were seized from his house vide seizure memo Ex.P- 6. Clothes of accused were seized vide Ex.P-7. Blood stained clothes of injured Satyam Nandi (PW-3) were seized vide Ex.P-8. Injured Rekha Patil (PW-1) and Satyam Nandi (PW-3) were medically examined by doctor under Ex.P-20 and P-23 respectively. 3. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act before the competent Court followed by charge under Sections 294, 506, 324, 307 of IPC, Section 25 (1-B) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Trial Court. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as 4 many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondent pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, no witness has been examined by the accused. 5. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment, while convicting the accused/respondent under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.2000/-, acquitted him of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506, 307 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) (B)/27 of the Arms Act. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the State/appellant herein. 6. The learned State counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the accused/respondent from the offences with which they were charged. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the complainant in its correct perspective and, instead, proceeded on surmises and conjectures. The Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses in the absence of any cogent or convincing 5 reasons to do so. The learned State counsel further submits that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the conduct of the respondent, clearly establish ill-intention, and the respondent ought to have been convicted appropriately by the learned Trial Court. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court committed a serious error of law in disbelieving and misappropriating the evidence of the doctors who examined the injured/deceased, and in ignoring the medical findings available on record, thereby arriving at erroneous conclusions. The learned Trial Judge further failed to properly appreciate both the factual and legal aspects of the case and overlooked the clear evidence demonstrating that the accused respondents had committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are thus perverse and contrary to the material available on record. It has been also submitted that on a comprehensive perusal of the entire record, it is well established that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court further erred in ignoring the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the 6 accused respondents. In view of the foregoing grounds, amongst others, the learned State counsel submits that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court is unjust, improper, and bad in law, and consequently, the same deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused/respondent supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal submits that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies, and lack of credible evidence. PW-1 Rekha Patil, in her cross-examination, clearly admitted that the accused was not armed with any weapon at the time of the altercation and that she sustained injuries due to a fall in the presence of a large crowd. She further contradicted herself regarding the presence of alleged eyewitnesses PW-3 Satyam Nandi and PW-5 Bulti Dey at the spot. PW-2 Ashish Patil categorically stated that he was not present at the time of the incident and only noticed injuries on his mother after she returned and narrated a verbal altercation. PW-3 and PW-5 did not support the prosecution version, and their statements were inconsistent with that of PW-1. PW-4 Sandeep Gaikwad, an independent witness projected as an eyewitness, expressly stated that he did not witness the incident, did not see the accused at the spot, and merely 7 took the injured Satyam to the hospital. He further admitted that no one disclosed who caused the injuries or how they were sustained. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. PW-12, the medical expert, failed to opine on the seriousness of the injuries and did not conclusively establish that the seized articles were stained with human blood. PW-11, Dr. D.C. Jain, the treating surgical specialist, clearly stated that the injuries sustained by Satyam Nandi were of a normal nature and likely to heal within about ten days, thereby negating the allegation of grievous or life-threatening injuries. It was further submitted that there is no clarity regarding the alleged weapon of offence, as the complainant herself admitted that the accused was not carrying any weapon. No credible independent public witness has supported the prosecution story, despite the alleged incident having occurred at a public place. The trial court rightly noted the absence of reliable corroboration, material evidence, and proof of criminal intent. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 307, 324, 506, 294 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The limited conviction under Section 324 IPC, recorded only on the peculiar facts and circumstances with 8 a monetary penalty, does not warrant any further interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506, 324, 307 of IPC, Section 25 (1-B)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court while setting aside the conviction of the accused/respondent under Sections 294, 506, 307 IPC and Sections 25(1-B(B) and 27 of Arms Act, convicted him under Section 324 and sentenced to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.2000/-. 10. Smt. Rekha Patil (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident, while she was returning from grocery shop, the accused came to her and asked about her son hurling filthy abuses, to which, she also hurled abuses, on which the accused started ballyragging with her due to which she fell down and sustained injury on right hand wrist. She has also stated that she sustained injury due to falling and thereafter she lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1). The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined her but she denied her police statement (Ex.P-4) on ‘A to A’ part. 9 11. Ashish Patil (PW-2) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and declared him hostile, and denied police statement (Ex.P-11) on ‘A to A’ part and admitted his signature on Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-10 but denied any proceeding before him including the recording of memorandum statement of accused before him. 12. Satyam Nandi (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident accused assaulted him with sword and knife and he sustained injuries on his left palm, left elbow and left rib. He has also stated that Sandeep and Shankar took him to police station Chhawni, thereafter he was taken to Supela Govt. Hospital where his wounds were stitched and after consulting with doctor, he was admitted in Govt. Hospital, Durg, where he was admitted for 7-8 days. 13. Sandeep Gayakwad (PW-4) and Smt. Bulti Dey (PW-5) have stated that they had seen the injuries of Satyam Nandi (PW-3). 14. Dr. D.K. Patel (PW-12) had examined injured Satyam Nandi (PW-3) and found as many as 04 injuries on right side of chest, on the surface of left elbow, left forearm and cut of brachial artery of the left elbow respectively, and referred the victim for further treatment to District Hospital, Durg. 10 15. Dr. D.C. Jain (PW-11), surgical specialist, posted in District Hospital, Durg, examined injured Satyam Nandi and found cut injuries on his left hand near elbow and above the wrist, which were caused by the assault, and the same were stitched by the emergency physician. The doctor had also referred the victim for x-ray. He has also stated that bedhead ticket of Satyam Nandi is Ex.P-22 and he admits his signature on ‘A to A’ part thereon, and in cross- examination, the Doctor has admitted this suggestion of defence that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and could be healed within 10 days. 16. Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW-6) has stated that he had performed x- ray of left elbow and writ of injured Satyam Nandi vide Ex.P- 12 and did not find any fracture in his hand. 17. From a careful perusal of the record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, it is evident that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence on record and has not committed any illegality or error of law in acquitting the accused/respondent of the offences under Sections 294, 506, 307 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act. 18. The testimony of the complainant, Smt. Rekha Patil (PW-1), 11 clearly establishes that she sustained injury due to a fall during a verbal altercation and not due to any assault with a weapon by the accused. She did not support the prosecution version and denied her previous police statement, and was therefore rightly treated as a hostile witness. Similarly, Ashish Patil (PW-2) also failed to support the prosecution case and denied the alleged proceedings conducted in his presence. Although Satyam Nandi (PW-3) alleged assault by the accused, his version does not find corroboration from independent witnesses or from the medical evidence. PW-4 Sandeep Gaikwad and PW-5 Smt. Bulti Dey merely stated that they had seen the injuries on PW-3. 19. The medical evidence further weakens the prosecution case. Dr. D.C. Jain (PW-11), the treating surgical specialist, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by injured Satyam Nandi were simple in nature and likely to heal within ten days. Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW- 6) also confirmed that the X-ray examination did not reveal any fracture. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the allegation of grievous or life-threatening injuries so as to attract Section 307 IPC. In view of the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, lack of reliable corroboration, hostile 12 witnesses, and medical evidence indicating simple injuries, the learned Trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The conviction under Section 324 IPC with sentence limited to the period already undergone and fine was passed after due consideration of the material on record. 20. Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue where medical evidence given great corroborative value in Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and connected matter reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497 held in paras 18, 20, 21 and 22 as under :- “18. The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. In the case at hand, PW-8, Dr. Himkar who examined the informant PW-6 has clearly stated that all the injuries attributed on the informant were caused by firearms and that tattooing may not appear over the wound (injured area) if a 13 person fires from 6-7 ft . 19. xxxx 20. It is a well-know fact that the term “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 IPC which reads as under :- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. – Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows :- 14 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2. Such hurt was caused : a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or b. By fire or other heated instruments, or c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or d. By any explosive substance, or e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or f. By an animal. 22. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine. 21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sivamani & Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2023 SCConLine SC 1581 held in para 9 as under :- “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not 15 necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” 22. 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:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the 16 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." 23. 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/respondent of the charge under Sections 294, 506, 307 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(B) 17 and 27 of the Arms Act and conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC with sentence limited to the period already undergone and fine of Rs.2000/- thereunder, 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. 24. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.02.06 12:32:03 +0530