High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.01.24 14:37:40 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR ACQA No. 75 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on 08.01.2025 Judgment Delievered on 24.01.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Nilesh Sonwani @ Bablu, S/o Shivkumar Sonwani, aged about 19 Years, 2. Shivkumar Sonwani, S/o Late Mithu Sonwani, aged about 45 Years, Both are R/o Village Nagra (Uraonpara), Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Anjiv Kumar Singh and Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.250/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charge under Section 2 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there was a Mahua tree on the boundary of the field of complainant- Sukhadi and accused- Shivkumar Sonwani. During Mahua season, both the parties used to collect Mahua lying in their respective fields and there was a dispute between them with respect to collection of Mahua. On 28.03.2011 in the morning, when complainant-Sukhadi, PW-4 Ramdhani and accused persons were collecting Mahua, at that time, accused- Shivkumar stopped them from collecting Mahua, due to which, quarrel took place between them and in that event, accused-Shivkumar assaulted PW-4 Ramdhani with Tangi and accused-Nilesh @ Bablu assaulted complainant-Sukhadi with club, as a result of which, they suffered grievous injuries over their bodies. Thereafter, complainant- Sukhadi informed the matter to PW-2 Vedprakash, PW-8 Devnarayan and other village people. After that, the matter was reported to the police station Ramanujganj, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P-13) was registered against the accused persons. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-11 and complainant (PW-1) Sukhadi was sent for medical examination where PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha examined him and found simple injuries over the person of the complainant. Injured/PW-4 Ramdhani was also examined by PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha, who upon examination, found injuries over his left hand and advised for X-ray and as per X-ray report, there was fracture of ulna and radius bone in left hand. According to PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha, injuries found on the person of the victims could have been caused by falling from bicycle or a motorcycle and gave his MLC reports vide 3 Exs.P-8 & P-9 respectively. Accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-15 & Ex.P-16. Vide Exs.P-2 & P-3 clothes of PW-2 Sukhadi and PW-4 Ramdhani were seized. Vide Ex.P-4, club has been seized from the possession of the respondent No.1 Nilesh and vide Ex.P-5, one Tangi has been seized from the possession of the respondent No.2 Shivkumar. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report, blood has been found on the seized articles. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the concerned trial Court under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. Accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charge leveled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court acquitting the respondents herein from the alleged offence is apparently contrary to law, as the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the injured witnesses, namely Sukhadi (PW-1) and Ramdhani (PW-4) have not been considered in its proper manner by the trial Court. He would further submit that medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha also finds corroboration with the statements of injured witnesses and there is ample evidence available on record against accused persons and despite that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused 4 persons without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons / respondents would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. They would further submit that medical evidence does not corroborate the case of the prosecution and further independent witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. They would also submit that from the spot map (Ex.P-14) and as per the statement of PW-11 A. Kujur, I.O., it is proved that the said Mahua tree was in the field of accused persons and the learned trial Court, after evaluating the material documents available on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial 5 court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons for the aforesaid offence? 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention Section 307 of the IPC which states as under:- "307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 11. PW-4 Ramdhani/injured has stated that his house is situated near his field and field of accused persons are adjacent to his field and in between there is a boundary, on which, Mahua tree was situated and its distance was 30 metres away from his house, but PW-1 Sukhadi has stated that distance of Mahua tree was 40 feet away from his house. He has further stated that on the date of incident, he along with her father/PW-1 were collecting Mahua, at that time, accused persons came there armed with tangi and club and started assaulting them, by which, his left hand got fractured, however, on the contrary, PW-1 Sukhadi has stated that on the date of incident, only his son/PW-4 Ramdhani had gone to collect Mahua from the field and stated that he (PW-1 Sukhadi) had seen the incident from his house at the distance of 40 feet. He has also stated that accused-Shivkumar assaulted him with tangi over his head twice, as a result of which, his head got cut and 6 blood was oozing. He has also stated that accused persons also assaulted his father/PW-1 Sukhadi with tangi and club, but PW-1 Sukhadi has stated that accused-Dinesh assaulted him with club. He has further stated that his mother PW-3 Basmati @ Basanti had seen the incident, but PW-3 Basmati Devi @ Basanti has stated that on the date of incident, she did not go to collect Mahua and was at home. In cross-examination, he (PW-4) admitted that near the place of incident, house of one Ramkaran and PW-6 Jaykaran were situated, but said Ramkaran has not been examined by the prosecution and that PW-6 Jaykaran has also not supported the prosecution case. He further admitted that he and his father (PW-1) refused the accused persons to collect Mahua as they were collecting Mahua from their field and further stated that accused persons told him that all the collected Mahua are of them, but PW-11 A. Kujur, I.O. has admitted in his cross-examination that place of incident mentioned in spot map (Ex.P-14) belongs to the accused persons and Mahua tree was situated in the field of accused- Shivkumar, meaning thereby, PW-4 Ramdhani was collecting Mahua from the field of accused-Shikumar. Apart from that PW-2 Sukhadi has stated that after the incident, he informed about the incident to PW-2 Vedprakash and PW-8 Devnarayan, but both the witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and PW-2 Vedprakash has stated that when PW-2 Sukadi and PW-4 Ramdhani came to him and informed about the incident, at that time, he did not see any injury over their bodies. Moreover, PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha, who examined PW-4 Ramdhani and PW-1 Sukhadi, found simple injuries over their bodies and only found one fracture over the left hand of injured-Ramdhani, 7 caused by hard and blunt object, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that injuries found on the body of PW-4 Ramdhani and PW-1 Sukhadi could have been caused by falling from bicycle or a motorcycle. This apart, PW-4 Ramdhani/injured has stated that accused- Shivkumar assaulted him with Tangi, but Dr. PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha, who upon examining him, did not notice any cut injury over the person of injured/Ramdhani caused by sharp edged weapon. Furthermore, PW-2 Sukhadi has also admitted that at the time of incident, he was at home and if that be so, then how could he receive injury. 12. Thus, from the evidence of PW-2 Sukadi and PW-4 Ramdhani, it appears that there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements and their statements do not corroborate with each other as well as from the medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. S.K. Sinha with respect to the alleged incident, which makes their version doubtful. Moreover, witnesses to memorandum and seizure, namely, PW-5 Bhagwati Ghasi and PW-6 Jaykaran have also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that on the date of incident, PW-4 Ramdhani was collecting Mahua from the field of accused-Shivkumar and when accused-Shivkumar tried to stop him to collect Mahua from his field, at that time, quarrel took place between them and in that event, accused persons took their right of private defence in order to save the property and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the said charge on the benefit of doubt. 8 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein of the aforesaid charge is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh