Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.02.17 18:03:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:8073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 863 of 2016 Gokul Prasad, S/o - Chaturgun Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o - Village - Bade - Salhi, Police Station - Khadgawan, Civil And Revenue Distt. - Koriya, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh , versus ... Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Khadgawan, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Kanchan Kalvani and Ms. Shivali Bansal, Advocates appear on behalf of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 14/02/2025 Heard. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, Dist. Koriya C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.106/2012, affirming the judgment dated 18.09.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.282/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 341 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for 2 short, 'IPC') and sentenced him till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.200/- under Section 341 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 of IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there was land dispute between the the complainant – Banarasi Sahu (P.W.1), the applicant and other co-accused persons and on 28.07.2010 at 4.00 pm, when the P.W.1 Banarasi Sahu was going to the Police Station Khadgawan to lodge the report against the accused persons in connection land dispute, the accused persons including the applicant stopped him on way, abused him with filthy language, threatened to kill him and beat him with an iron rod, due to which, he suffered injuries on his hands and legs. Incident of assault on him was reported to the Police Station and on the report of the complainant, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. During investigation, complainant’s X-ray test revealed fractures in the bones of his left hand and left leg. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant and other co-accused persons, who abjured their charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant and other co-accused persons as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.09.2016 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. They further submit that the statement of P.W.1 Banasari Sahu was not corroborated by the statement of P.W.3 Deepak Nath, before whom, P.W.1 informed him that he go injured on account of his fall on the road. They further submit that the prosecution has also failed to prove any seizure from the applicant and even independent witness P.W.4 Kashi Ram has not supported the seizure proceedings. They further contend that as per Ex.P.3, the 3 length of iron rod was 90 cm, but as per Ex.P.16, length of iron rod was shown to be 39 inches in this way, the prosecution was unable to show the length of iron rod, moreover, the said iron rod was not sealed by the Police Officers. They further put forth that the applicant was roped in because of land dispute between the complainant and the applicant. They further submit that as per suggestion put forth before P.W.6 Dr. A.K.Singh, the injuries sustained by the complainant could be caused by fall. Lastly, they submit that X-ray report has not been exhibited and that Radiologist has also not been examined by the prosecution. On these premises, they urge that the applicant be released by allowing the revision. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while opposing the revision, submits that the statement of P.W.1 Banarasi Sahu was corroborated by medical evidence and other statements of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the findings with respect to conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed thereunder, are the findings being based on evidence and other material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments, I shall deal with the evidence on record. P.W.1 complainant Banarasi Sahu has stated that when he was going to lodge a report against the applicant and other accused persons with respect to land dispute, then the applicant along with other co-accused persons stopped him on way and assaulted him with rod, on account of which, he sustained injuries including fractures on his left hand and right leg, however, in cross-examination he admitted that at the time of incident he was going on his bicycle. P.W.3 Deepak Nath has stated that when he was doing transplantation in his field, he heard the crying voice of Banarasi Sahu and rushed to him and saw lying fallen on the road and his bicycle was also lying beside him. This witness has further stated that Banarasi Sahu asked him to lift his cycle and at the time P.W.1 Banarasi Sahu told him to take his home, then this witness asked him as to how he fell on the road, thereupon, he told 4 this witness that he fell due to accident. However, this witness tried to lift the complainant to take him away, but he was unable to lift him and went back to his field. If the statement of P.W.3 Deepak Nath is read together with the statement of P.W.1 Banarasi Sahu, then this Court finds no corroboration in the version of P.W.1 Banarasi Sahu. Moreover, medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution as P.W.6, Dr. A.K.Singh, who examined the complainant and found injuries over his body vide MLC report Ex.P.15, admitted in his cross-examination that those injuries found on his body could be caused by his fall. Furthermore, P.W.5 C.S.Sidar, A.S.I. has stated in his examination that he seized one iron rod from the applicant vide seizure memo Ex.P.3, however, on the contrary, P.W.4 Kashiram, who is stated to be seizure witness, has not supported the prosecution case by stating that the Police personnel did not seize any iron rod before him. The other seizure witness Karan Sai was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. It would also reveal from the seizure memo Ex.P.3 that seized article was not properly sealed and that too, there was no sample seal affixed in column No.13. Moreover, in the seizure memo Ex.P.3, the length of iron rod was shown to be 90 cm whereas in query report Ex. P.16, the length of the same was shown to be 39 inches, which is more than 99.06 cms, therefore, the description with respect to length of rod does not match. Besides above, although X-ray of the applicant was done but it was not exhibited by the prosecution and that no Radiologist was examined by it. If the case of the prosecution is considered as it is, then there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the entire story of prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such a situation, the findings recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court with respect to conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed thereunder, needs to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to be acquitted of the said charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside. The 5 applicant is acquitted of the charges mentioned above by extending benefit of doubt. 10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani