High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.465 of 2016 2025:CGHC:23125 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.14 14:23:21 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 465 of 2016 1 - Manoj Vishvakarma S/o Shriram Vishvakarma Aged About 20 Years R/o Bharkapara, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Ritesh Raj S/o Bhaiyalal Khaparde Aged About 35 Years R/o Gaurinagar, Thana - Kotwali, Distt. - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh District Rajnandgaon, : 3 - Shankar Singh @ Chhotu Thakur S/o Ashok Thakur Aged About 23 Years R/o Divanpara, Thana Kotwali, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 11 .06.2025 Judgment on Board This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Atrocity), District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 67/2012, whereby the 2 appellants/accused have been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 324/34 of the IPC (BNS) R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, additional R.I. for three months 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Piyush Chitlangya lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon that he lives in the house of one Sanjay Agarwal and works in the business of iron and cement. On 3.6.2012, he went to watch movies in Kamal Talkies at 2.00 pm along with Nitin, Manoj, Rakesh, Kailash and Sheru. There was a crowd pushing and shoving to them in the talkies. Thereafter, on being objected by the complainant, the appellants/accused assaulted him with hands & fist, belt and bottle, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries/bruises on his head and on the right side of his ear. Thereafter, offence was registered against the appellants and after due investigation, the appellants were arrested. 2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellants for the aforementioned offence and the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and stated that they are innocent 3 and they have been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for commission of aforesaid offence, which is bad in law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellants to assault the complainant and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellants caused injuries to complainant. Also, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellants are guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants which does not require for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 7. The question for consideration would be whether the accused- appellants herein are the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimony of complainant/Piyush (PW-4), Dr. Ekta Denial (PW- 7), Balram Singh (PW-13) and Nitin Kumar (PW-9). 8. Complainant/injured of the case Piyush Chitlangya (PW-4) stated in his evidence that he has identified the accused/appellants herein and deposed that on 3rd June, 2012 he went to watch movies at Kamal Talkies along with his labourers Manoj, Nitin, Kailash, Sheru and Rakesh. Then, near the door of the counter of the Talkies, accused Manoj pushed him and when he refused, he pushed him two-three times. When he caught hold of accused to save himself from falling, accused Manoj abused him and called the other persons. Thereafter, the appellants/accused along with other persons assaulted him with hands & fist, broken pepsi bottle and by belts, due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. 9. Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-7) who medically examined the complainant and found following injuries:- A cut wound on the right side of the face near the right eye. Its size was 1x5 cm. There was a lump on the occipital region on the right side of the head. Its size was 1x3 cm. The above injuries caused from hard and blunt object. 10. In the present case, the memorandum statement is not proved and contradictory statements have been made in the identification proceedings, which raises doubts in the case. But the same is not 5 acceptable, because on the basis of the memorandum of the accused/appellants, the seizure of the Pepsi bottle has been recovered from the possession of appellant/Shankar. 11. Nitin Kumar (PW-9) stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 2 o'clock, 5-6 persons were assaulting the complainant/Piyush along with the accused/appellants by hands, fists and belt. Thereafter, he informed the elder brother of complainant/Piyush by phone. When the complainant’s brother came to the spot, the appellants fled away from the place of incident. Due to assault made by the appellants, complainant become unconscious and blood was oozing from his head and forehead. He further stated in his statement that accused-Shankar had assaulted the Piyush/ complainant on his head with a glass bottle of Pepsi. Thereafter, injured/complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. 12. Balram Singh (PW-13) Head Constable posted in Kotwali for the last 6 months. In his statement, he stated that in the register of seized goods, on page number 285, S. No.142, it is mentioned that on 18.8.2012, four pieces of Pepsi bottle were seized from the possession of accused/ Shankar. 13. Thus, on the basis of testimony of complainant/Piyush (PW-4), Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-7), Balram Singh (PW-13) and Nitin Kumar (PW-9), it is clear that the appellants herein caused grievous injuries to the complainant. 14. Moreover, emphasizing the statement of the Nitin Kumar (PW-9), who is the sole eyewitness in the present case deposed that the appellant No.3 Shankar Singh had assaulted the complainant by 6 means of Pepsi Bottle, due to which, complainant fell down and blood was oozing out from his head. Apart from that, according to the statement of Balram Singh (PW-13), Head Constable deposed that in the register of seized goods, on page number 285, at S.No.142, it is mentioned that four pieces of Pepsi bottle were seized from the possession of accused/Shankar. 15. Dr. Ekta Denial (PW-7) admitted in cross-examination that the injury sustained by the victim was not sufficient to cause his death. As such, it is quite vivid that there is no common intention attracted in the present case. The appellants had no reason to assault the complainant but there was a sudden quarrel took place over movie tickets on the spot and 7-8 persons gathered, thereafter, assaulted the complainant. 16. But there is no evidence on record as to which A-1/Manoj and A-2/Ritesh assaulted the injured/complainant, due to which, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that whether the A-1/Manoj and A-2/Ritesh had assaulted complainant. The complainant was assaulted by appellant No.3-Shankar by means of Pepsi Bottle, which is proved in the evidence of Nitin Kumar (PW-9) and Balram Singh (PW-13), Head Constable. 17. Upon due scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and material available on record, it is manifest that the appellants No.1 & 2 have not caused any injury to the complainant whereas there is a specific evidence that that the appellant No.3 assaulted the complainant with the glass bottle. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants No.1 & 2 is bad and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 7 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of appellant No.1-Manoj Vishwakarma and appellant No.2-Ritesh Raj for offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC as well as the sentence awarded thereunder are hereby set aside by considering the fact that the complainant was not assaulted by them and even no seizure was made from them. 19. In so far as the conviction of the Appellant No.3-Shankar Singh @ Chhotu Thakur is concerned, his conviction under Section 324/34 of the IPC is hereby maintained by considering the fact that he assaulted the complainant with glass (pepsi) bottle and the seizure of same has also been made from his possession. 20. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by the appellants No.1 & 2 at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellants No.1 & 2 shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 21. Appellant No.3-Shankar Singh @ Chhotu Thakur is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. He shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court forthwith serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. 22. Appellant No.3 be informed that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal 8 Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 23. As an upshot, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 24. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep