State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Mohan Sai Aged About 41 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.554 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Mohan Sai Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Koteya, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhaula S/o Kalamsai Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Koteya, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manish Kumar S/o Kalamsai Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Koteya, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Tahsil Kumar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Koteya, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.08.07 11:11:08 +0530 2
Legal Reasoning
9. It is well settled that as to standard of proof of right of private defence, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities. Further, the burden which rests on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt is neither neutralised nor shifted because the accused pleads the right of private defence. 10. Here in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove in clear terms as to who had sown the crop and there is preponderance of probabilities established by the accused/Respondents that Complainant party has mortgaged the field and they had sown the crop, however, as the same was being 6 taken away by the Complainant party, therefore, the dispute occurred. With regard to other charges framed under Section 294 IPC, there are no specific words mentioned in the FIR and the words which were used during the quarrel do not pass the test of obscenity and the empty threat does not attract the offence of criminal intimidation. 11. The law has been recently well settled in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakand reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 and the Supreme Court has directed therein that for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused, it has to be seen whether the same suffers from patent perversity; the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law cited above and the settled principle that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a 7 plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Priya Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE
Arguments
For Appellant/State : Shri Dilman Rathi Minj, G.A. For Respondents : None appears though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 06.08.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.12.2018 passed by the JMFC, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.1737/2014 whereby, the Respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 294, 506 and 323/34 IPC. 2. The summarized case of the prosecution is that Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) has lodged FIR at 30.10.2014 at about 10.05 am at PS Darima, District Surguja wherein, she has stated that she resides at village Chindkalo and on 29.10.2014 at about 6 pm, when she and her husband Bachraj Singh (PW-4), her son Balrup Singh (PW-2), Babu Singh (PW-3) and Kendal (PW-5), were carrying the harvested rice paddy from their fields situated at village Kotema, en route near the canal, the accused/Respondents obstructed their way and abused them filthily in the name of mother and sister, threatened to kill them and committed marpit by using hands and fists while taking away their harvested rice paddy forcibly and one of the accused/Respondents i.e. Sanjay assaulted on her hand by using club. Based on such information, FIR 3 (Ex.P-1) was registered, crime details form has been prepared (Ex.P-2), one bamboo club has been seized from accused/Respondent No.1-Sanjay (Ex.P-7), Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) was examined (Ex.P-8) by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-7), who found one lacerated wound over her left index finger measuring ½ x ½ cms and she was complaining pain on the left side of her back. As per his opinion, injury was simple in nature and statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. accused/Respondents have abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents (Ex.P-1 to P-8). In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondents have stated that they have been falsely implicated and pleaded innocence and examined Smt Khelkunwar (DW-1) in their defence. They have taken a defence that they themselves have sown the crop of rice paddy, which was wrongly taken by Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) and her family members and as they objected the same, therefore, a false report has been lodged against them. 4. After evaluation of evidence, the trial Court has accepted the plea of accused/Respondents for the right of private defence and as the offence under Sections 506 and 294 IPC has not been 4 made out, therefore, acquitted the Respondents/accused as stated above. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the State/Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in its proper perspective and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/State, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection. 7. Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) has admitted that they borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the mother of the accused/ Respondent Bhaula and mortgaged their field as security and further admits that she has not repaid the said loan amount. One of the witnesses i.e. Kendal (PW-5), who was also present at the spot while the Complainant party was taking out rice paddy from the fields, clearly admits that there exists a custom in their village that if a person mortgages his field, he should return the crop sown therein as ‘interest’. This witness further admits that on the date of incident, the accused/Respondents were claiming the said crop in the form of interest but he was not aware of the fact that mortgaged land was sown by the accused/Respondents though there are competing claims by both sides. Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) has deposed that she has sown the crop but her son Balrup Singh (PW-2) clearly admits in his cross-examination that for the past two 5 years, the accused/Respondents have taken the said crop. Smt Khelkunwar (DW-1) has deposed that Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) has given her fields to the accused/Respondents for mortgage amount of Rs.51,500/- and they have sown the crop therein but Complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) was taking away the same, therefore, the dispute occurred. She further deposed that the village Sarpanch and other persons advised complainant Jaldevati (PW-1) not to take the said crop. 8. Taking into account the aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court has extended the benefit of right of private defence in favour of the accused/Respondents.