Premlal Marya S/o Sumeri Marya Aged About 32 Years R/o Khajri , P.S. Khairagarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Incharge Arakshi Kendra Khairagarh , Post
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33209-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.216 of 2012 Premlal Marya S/o Sumeri Marya Aged About 32 Years R/o Khajri , P.S. Khairagarh ,Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Incharge Arakshi Kendra Khairagarh , Post Khairagarh Raj , Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Manisha D/o Manrakhan Chandel Aged About 22 Years R/o Khajri , P.S. Khairagarh , Post Khairagarh Raj , Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Accused) 3 - Manrakhan S/o Bhuwan Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Khajri , P.S. Khairagarh, Post Khairagarh Raj, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Accused) ... Respondents For Appellant : For Respondent No.1 :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Shubham Rao, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 16/07/2025 SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.07.17 16:08:50 +0530 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon 2 (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.01/2010, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2009, a report was lodged by the appellant/complainant-Premlal Marya, before the Police Station-Khairagarh, alleging therein, that on the fateful day, i.e. on 11.09.2009 at 5.30 P.M., when he was returning from his Kothar, he was attacked due to some previous enmity by Gajju Satnami, Manrakhan Satnami, Manish Satnami and Khelawan Satnami, while using filthy words, with the aid of stick, rod and axe. It is alleged further that he was assaulted by Manish with “rod”, Manrakhan with an “axe”, while Gajju and Khelawan have assaulted him with the aid of “stick”, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his head, backside of his body as also hands, fists and the teeth. 3) On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the said persons, namely, Manrakhan Satnami, Gajju Satnami, Manish Satnami and Khelawan Satnami for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant/complainant, on account of the alleged injuries, was examined by Dr. Ashok Botke (PW-11) on 11.09.2009 and was, thereafter, referred to the District Hospital at Rajnandgaon, where he was admitted on the same date i.e. 11.09.2009 and was treated upto 23.09.2009 by Dr. B.C. Jain (PW-5). During the course of investigation, a stick was recovered from one Ku. Manisha, daughter of Manrakhan- Respondent No.3 on 10.10.2009, who was not alleged by him with regard to the alleged incident, in presence of Jagat (PW-4) and 3 Meghnath (PW-1) and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh against the Respondent No.3-Manrakhan and his daughter, namely, Ku. Manisha, while the charge-sheet was submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board against Ku. Kusumlata and Kamleshwari, who are the minor daughters of Respondent No.3- Manrakhan and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against the Respondent No.2-Ku. Manisha and Respondent No.3-Manrakhan for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 307 of IPC and, the charges so framed, were denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents, while one witness was examined by the respondents in their defence. 5) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not involved in connection with alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant. 6) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence of the appellant/complainant-Premlal Marya (PW-10), his wife Savita (PW-9), Naresh (PW-3) and one Jalwantin Bai (PW-12), have not been 4 scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3, while referring to the statements of the appellant/complainant- Premlal Marya (PW-10), his wife Savita (PW-9) and Jalwantin Bai (PW- 12), submits that there is gross disparity in their testimonies and, therefore, the trial Court while taking note of their evidence, has not erred in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 8) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 11.09.2009 at 5.30 P.M., when the complainant was returning from his Kothar and was assaulted by the respondents with the aid of stick, rod and axe while using filthy languages. 10) According to the report (Ex.P-7) lodged by the complainant-Premlal Marya, it was alleged by him that on the said fateful day, when he was returning from his Kothar, at that particular time, he was assaulted by Gajju Satnami, Manrakhan Satnami, Manish Satnami and Khelawan Satnami, on his head and other parts of his body with the aid of stick, rod and axe, while using filthy words. 11) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the wife of the complainant, namely, Savita was examined as PW-9, and according to her testimony, it appears that when she and her husband were 5 returning from the Kothar, at that particular time, Manrakhan and his daughters have come, while using filthy words and started assaulting her husband and, in order to save himself, he went to the field of one Naresh. She deposed further that at that particular place also, the respondents assaulted him with the aid of stick and rod, owing to which, her husband has sustained injuries on his head, hands and fists and his teeth was broken down. Her husband, namely, Premlal (Complainant) was examined as PW-10 and, it appears from his testimony that on the said fateful day, he was attacked by the respondents from his backside with the aid of stick and rod and, in order to save himself, he entered into the field of one Naresh, where he was again assaulted by them with the aid of rod and stick, owing to which, he has become unconscious. Although, it was stated by the complainant (PW-10) that he was assaulted by the respondents with the aid of Rod and Axe, but the said weapons are, however, not found to be recovered from any of the respondents. That apart, it appears from his testimony that at that particular time, when he was being assaulted as such, one Jalwantin Bai was also present. However, said Jalwantin Bai, who was examined as PW-12, has not supported the version of him as well as of his wife, namely, Savita (PW-9) as it was stated specifically by her at para 2 that on the date of incident, the wife of the complainant, namely, Savita was not present. The alleged versions of the complainant (PW-10) and his wife (PW-9), therefore, not found to be corroborated by her (PW-12). No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon their testimonies in order to attribute the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 6 12) Besides, Naresh (PW-3), in whose badi, the complainant has entered, in order to save himself from the clutches of the respondents, has, however, not supported the version of the complainant and has turned hostile. 13) Pertinently to be noted here further that when the alleged report (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the complainant-Premlal Marya (PW-10), names of Manrakhan, Gajju Satnami, Manish Satnami and Khelawan Satnami were disclosed, but entire of his testimony and the statement of others, the names of theirs, have, however, not disclosed by any of the witnesses. Even otherwise, the complainant himself has admitted at para-4 of his testimony that the names of theirs were not disclosed by him at the time of lodging the alleged report (Ex.P-7) on 11.09.2009. 14) In view of the aforesaid background, the prosecution has completely failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, so as to hold that the respondents are involved in connection with the alleged crime and, the trial Court 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. 15) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SSSD/- SD/- /-d/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane