Beohar High Court
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR CRA No. 337 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 02.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 23.09.2025 1 - Subhash Chandra Bhatt S/o Chandrabhushan Bhatt Aged About 38 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pankaj Kumar Bhatt S/o Chandrabhushan Bhatt Aged About 35 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prakash Chandra Bhatt S/o Chandrabhushan Bhatt Aged About 45 Years Occupation Doctor, R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rakesh Yadav S/o Kaliram Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occupation Hotel Business, R/o Ward No. 6, Berla, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gajendra Kumar Nirmalkar @ Gajju S/o Ramlal Nirmalkar Aged About 27 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Ward No. 13, Indira Nagar, Saja, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Roshan Sharma @ Monu S/o Kapil Narayan Sharma Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Sonipara, Berla, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 versus ---Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ACQA No. 134 of 2016 1 - Subhash Chandra Bhatt S/o Chandrabhushan Bhatt Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tebdubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Sudhakar @ Tillu S/o Late Shri Ambika Prasad Bhatt Aged About 50 Years R/o Kavardha. District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Madan Gopal S/o Late Shri Ambika Prasad Bhatt Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Devi Prasad S/o Shri Lala Ram Bhatt Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Lala Ram Bhatt Aged About 53 Years R/o Chhota Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhatttisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant(s) : For State For Objector : : 3 Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate appears along with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate (In CRA No. 337/2016) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate appears along with Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate (in ACQA No.134/2016) Division Bench : Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ. CAV Judgment Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. CRA No.337/2016 :- This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants/accused persons herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.62/2012 by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction U/s. 148 of Indian Penal Sentence Rigorous Imprisonment for three Code (for short, ‘IPC’) U/s. 302/149 of IPC years to each appellant Imprisonment for life and fine of U/s. 325/149 of IPC Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months to each appellant Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount U/s. 325/149 of IPC U/s. 325/149 of IPC 4 to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months to each appellant (in respect of injured-Dinesh) Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months to each appellant (in respect of injured-Sudhakar Bhatt) Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months to each appellant (in respect of injured-Madan Gopal) (All sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. ACQA No.134/2014:- This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/accused- Subhash Chandra Bhatt arises out of the same judgment dated 06.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.76/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents No.1 to 4 herein of the charge under Sections 294, 323 & 506-B of IPC. 3. Since both the above captioned appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 06.02.2016, they are being heard
Decision
together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Dinesh 5 Bhatt, along with his cousins, namely Madan Gopal, Sudhakar, and Rajendra, owns agricultural land situated in village Tendubhatha. This land was under dispute with Subhash, Prakash, and Pankaj Bhatt. On 29.06.2012, the complainant and his cousins were engaged in sowing paddy on the disputed land with the help of a tractor belonging to one Jairam Lodhi, a resident of the same village. At that time, Devi Bhatt, Sudhakar, Rajendra, Madan Gopal, Madan Gopal’s son Bittu, and one Manoj Sharma of Kawardha were also present at the site. At around 11:45 a.m., the accused persons, namely Subhash (Appellant No.1), Pankaj (Appellant No.2), and Prakash Bhatt (Appellant No.3), arrived on a motorcycle, while accused persons Gajju Nirmalkar (Appellant No.5), Rakesh Yadav (Appellant No.4), and Roshan Sharma (Appellant No.6) came on another motorcycle. Subhash was armed with a tangia (axe), while the other accused were carrying sticks. After parking their motorcycles near the pond, due to the ongoing land dispute, the accused persons began assaulting the complainant party (respondents No.1 to 4 in ACQA No.134/2016) with the tangia and sticks, while also hurling filthy abuses and issuing life threats. As a result of the assault, Dinesh Bhatt, Rajendra, Sudhakar, and Madan Gopal sustained injuries on their hands, legs, and head. With the help of villagers, the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Saja. The incident was witnessed by 6 Jairam Patel, Manoj Sharma, and Bittu (son of Madan Gopal). Rajendra Bhatt, who had sustained grievous injuries, succumbed to the same during treatment at Saja Hospital later the same day. 5. Thereafter, on the same day, complainant Dinesh Bhatt lodged a report at Police Station Saja, pursuant to which FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, vide Crime No. 182/2012. An intimation regarding the death of Rajendra Bhatt was also recorded on the basis of information provided by Tekram Sahu, vide Ex. P-29. The injured persons were medically examined at CHC, Saja. Following the death of Rajendra Bhatt, summons were issued and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Exs. P-24 and P-25, and the dead body was sent for postmortem vide Ex. P-34A. The postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Saja, and the postmortem report is marked as Ex. P-34. Spot maps were prepared by the police and separately by the Patwari. 6. During investigation, accused persons were taken in custody. On 29.06.2012, memorandum statements of accused persons namely Subhash Bhatt, Pankaj Bhatt, Prakash Bhatt, Monu @ Roshan Sharma, Rakesh Yadav, and Gajju @ Gajendra Nirmalkar were recorded vide Exs. P-6, P-8, P-10, P-12, P-14, and P-16 respectively, pursuant to which, from accused- Subhash, one tangia and a motorcycle were seized vide Ex. P-7. From accused- Prakash, one stick and a mobile phone were seized vide Ex. P-9. Likewise, from accused- Pankaj, one stick and a mobile phone 7 were seized vide Ex. P-11. Similarly, from accused- Gajju, one stick was seized vide Ex. P-13. Also, from accused- Rakesh Yadav, one stick was seized vide Ex. P-15. Further, from accused- Monu @ Roshan Sharma, one stick and a mobile phone were seized vide Ex P-17. Vide Ex.P-28 clothes worn by injured- Sudhakar Bhatt were seized. Similarly, the clothes of injured persons namely Madan Gopal and Dinesh Bhatt were also seized vide Exs. P-3 & P-2. Blood-stained soil and plain soil were also seized from the spot vide Ex. P-4. A Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-K-5737 was seized from accused- Monu @ Roshan Sharma vide Ex. P-26. The seized articles, including clothes, tangia, and sticks, were sent to FSL chemical examination, however, no FSL report has been brought on record. Inquest proceedings were conducted as per Exhibit P-25. Following this, a postmortem examination of the deceased was carried out by Dr. Ghanshyam Singh Thakur (PW-07), and the report is marked as Exhibit P-34. According to the doctor's opinion, the cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest resulting from hemorrhagic shock, which occurred due to the rupture of a blood vessel in the leg. The mode of death was coma, and it was determined to be homicidal in nature. Thereafter, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 7. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional Criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in 8 which, appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offences. 8. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution has examined as many as 26 witnesses and brought on record 70 documents vide Ex.P/01 to P/70 whereas, the appellants in their defence have examined 5 witnesses and have exhibited 5 documents vide Ex.D/01 to D/05. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 9. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the complainant party of the charges under Sections 294, 323, and 506-B of the IPC, but convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused persons for the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, instant appeals have been filed by the accused persons and accused- Subhash Chandra Bhatt. 10. CRA No. 337 of 2016 – Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court, is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that although PW-1 and PW-2 have claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident, but their testimonies suffer from serious contradictions, and both are closely related to the 9 deceased, while no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He would also submit that PW-2 himself admitted that he could not attribute specific roles to any of the accused persons, nor could he identify who inflicted the fatal injury. He would further contend that there existed a long-standing land dispute between the parties, and a counter-case was also filed by the accused side arising out of the same incident. Even assuming the prosecution’s case to be true in its entirety, he would submit that the incident occurred suddenly, without premeditation, and there was no intention to cause death. At most, it is submitted, the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC or Section 325 IPC. Lastly, learned counsel would contend that the appellants have already undergone more than five years of imprisonment, and therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the State would submit that conviction of the accused persons/appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 12. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is well-reasoned and based on reliable evidence, particularly the consistent and corroborated testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, whose relationship with the deceased does not render their evidence unreliable in the absence of any 10 material suggesting false implication. He contends that the assault was deliberate and not a result of sudden provocation, as evident from the nature and location of injuries and the use of deadly weapons, clearly attracting the offence under Section 302 IPC. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution's case, and the absence of independent witnesses does not weaken it, since the eyewitnesses have been found trustworthy. The existence of a land dispute and a counter-case is insufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case, which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore opposes any reduction in sentence, asserting that the gravity of the offence warrants no leniency, especially considering that a human life has been lost due to the brutal act of the appellants. 13. ACQA No.134/2016 - Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is wholly unjustified in acquitting the respondents No.1 to 4 herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that there is cogent and clinching evidence on record in the form of injured witnesses namely Subhash Chandra Bhatt (PW-7) and Pankaj Bhatt (PW-8) and their testimony, being of injured witnesses, should have been given primacy. Minor discrepancies or the nature of injuries cannot dilute the prosecution case. He would further submit that the trial Court’s observation that injuries could be self-inflicted or caused by a fall is speculative. Thus, the 11 acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is against the weight of evidence and liable to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as State/respondent No.5 would support the impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution case in view of material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-7 Subhash Chandra Bhatt and PW-8 Pankaj Bhatt, lack of independent corroboration, and the prosecution’s failure to explain the fatal injuries sustained by the opposite party. The injuries on PW-7 Subhash Chandra Bhatt and PW-8 Pankaj Bhatt were minor and possibly self-inflicted. It is further urged that in an appeal against acquittal, interference by the appellate Court is unwarranted unless the findings of the trial Court are shown to be perverse or manifestly illegal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting respondents No.1 to 4 by ignoring the clear, cogent, and credible testimony of injured eyewitnesses PW-7 Subhash Chandra Bhatt and PW-8 Pankaj Bhatt, whose presence at the scene is unquestionable and whose injuries are medically corroborated, thereby lending strong support to the prosecution case. He argues that minor discrepancies in their statements are natural and do not go to the root of the matter, and the trial Court’s speculative observation 12 that the injuries may be self-inflicted or caused by a fall is not only unfounded but contrary to the evidence on record. The acquittal, being based on conjecture and ignoring material evidence, is perverse and unsustainable in law, warranting interference by the appellate Court. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased- Rajendra Kumar Bhatt was homicidal in nature which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-34) proved by Dr. Raghunandan Bishoi (PW-21), which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 18. Now, the question is whether the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime in question. 19. Considering the statements of PW-1 Dinesh Bhatt and PW- 2 Madan Gopal, who are injured eye-witnesses to the incident, as well as the statement of PW-4 Bittu Bhatt, all of whom have clearly supported the prosecution’s case, it is evident that the appellants, on the date of the incident, formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the complainant party and the deceased with 13 a sharp weapon (tangia) and sticks, and caused grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the deceased. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly recorded a finding that it was the appellants who committed the aforesaid offences. In our considered opinion, such a finding is a finding of fact, based on reliable evidence on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record, and therefore, we affirm the said finding. 20. Now, the question that requires consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or their case is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and as such, their conviction can be altered to either Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants? 21. In order to consider whether the case of the appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 wherein it has been observed as under :- “21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 14 homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana 2 , has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II, which state as under :- “23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen for its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 15 (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c)The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused with premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. 16 Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 15. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It is further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 17 16. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :- “20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para 7) “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 18 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9) “9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”. 17. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that when and if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be 19 case of Section 304 Part-I of IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 18. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 5 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested for bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite evident from the statements of PW-1 Dinesh Bhatt and PW-2 Madan Gopal, both injured eye-witnesses, as well as the testimony of PW-4 Bittu Bhatt, that it was the appellants who assaulted the complainant party and the deceased using a sharp weapon (tangia) and sticks, thereby causing grievous injuries to them and fatal injuries to the deceased. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirms that the deceased sustained both sharp and blunt force 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 20 injuries. However, the prosecution has not been able to conclusively establish which of the appellants inflicted the fatal injury. The existence of a land dispute and the fact that a counter- case was filed by the accused side suggest that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel relating to possession of agricultural land. There is no material on record to suggest premeditation or that the appellants acted with the intention to cause death. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, and the events leading up to the incident, it is evident that the assault occurred during a sudden altercation. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased. In the heat of passion and out of anger, the appellants assaulted the complainant party and the deceased using sticks and a tangia, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries that ultimately led to his death. As such, the appellants must have had the knowledge that their act would likely to cause the death of the deceased, but no intention of causing his death can be attributed to them. 20. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and since the appellants had no intention and premeditation to cause the death of the deceased, however, they must have had the knowledge that their act of assault would likely to cause the death of the deceased, their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II/149 21 of IPC and they are sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment in place of life imprisonment and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 148 of the IPC are hereby confirmed. So far as the conviction under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC (on three counts) is concerned, the same is confirmed and maintained. However, the sentence is reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with default stipulations. It has been informed that the appellants have already undergone more than five years of imprisonment and they were on bail. 21. 22. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. So far as acquittal appeal filed by the accused- Subhash Chandra Bhatt is concerned, the Hon’ble 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 the court 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.” rendering acquittal. Therefore, 23. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the 22 evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire material on record, held that the injuries sustained by Subhash Chandra Bhatt (PW-7) and Pankaj Bhatt (PW-8) were only superficial in nature, consisting of scratches, contusions, and complaints of pain, which could have been self-inflicted or caused by a fall during the incident. The medical evidence of Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-9) was relied upon, wherein he admitted in cross- examination that such injuries were possible by falling and that, had blows been inflicted with force, deeper injuries would have been caused. The learned trial Court further observed that the statements of Subhash Chandra Bhatt (PW-7) and Pankaj (PW-8) suffered from material contradictions and were not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, independent witnesses, namely, Jairam Lodhi (PW-1) and Manharan Patel (PW- 2), supported the defence version, stating that accused-Subhash and Pankaj along with their companions had themselves reached the spot on a motorcycle armed with sticks. It was also taken into account that a counter FIR was also registered against Subhash and Pankaj, further indicating a mutual dispute. Importantly, the prosecution failed to explain the death of Raju alias Rajendra and serious injuries to others involved in the incident, which raised further doubts about the prosecution story. Based on these findings, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 294, 323, and 506-B 23 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 of these charges. 24. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favouring the accused, reversal of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 25. For the foregoing discussions, the acquittal appeal (ACQA No.134/2016) filed by the accused-Subhash Chandra Bhatta against the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 4, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas the criminal appeal (CRA No.337/2016) filed by the appellants/accused persons is allowed in part. 26. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of CR.P.C., the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount before the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an 24 undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 27. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha