Chattisgarh High Court
The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Bodhan on 1 April, 2026
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Date:
2026.04.02
2026:CGHC:15129
10:45:46 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 120 of 2022
The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja
(CG).
.
....Appellant versus 1 - Bodhan S/o Thakur Ram Paikara, Aged About 63 Years 2 - Mahadev S/o Thakur Ram Paikara, Aged About 48 Years 3 - Sobaran S/o Bodhan Paikara, Aged About 33 Years All are R/o Village Bhakura (Majhapara), Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).
... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 01.04.2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal 2 Case No.4570/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506- Part II and 324/34 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.D-2) was lodged by the Complainant, namely, Sahodari Paikara on 01.07.2012 before the Police Station, Ambikapur, alleging inter alia, that on the date of the incident, i.e. 01.07.2012 in the morning around 7.00 am, when she was cultivating her land along with her cousin- Lanjaram, son- Ramkumar, nephew- Dhansai and uncle- Jagnu Ram, the respondents came armed with deadly weapons, like axe and spade and while abusing with filthy words in the name of mother and sister, stated why are you cultivating their land and threatened to kill, if they don't leave the place. It is alleged further that when she resisted, she was then assaulted by Bodhan Paikara with the aid of axe on her head and forehead and also assaulted on her hands and when her cousin- Lanjaram came for rescue, he was also assaulted by Sobaran, son of said Bodhan and, Mahadev, who was the brother of said Bodhan, with the aid of axe and spade and alleged further that when her uncle- Jagnu Ram came for rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused- Mahadev with spade and the alleged incident was seen by her son- Ramkumar and nephew- Dhansai.
3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the Complainant- Sahodari Paikara was examined as PW-1 and, it appears from her testimony that she sustained injuries on her head and was admitted into the Hospital. She deposed further that when she was being assaulted, her brother- 3 Lanjaram and father- Sagru Ram came for her rescue. Though, it was stated by her that her father- Sagru Ram has came for rescue, but it has not been mentioned in her said report that her father was present on the spot or was examined in order to corroborate her alleged version. Further of her testimony would reveal the fact that the accused persons have assaulted Lanjaram and Jagnu Ram with the aid of axe and spade, but the said Jagnu Ram, her uncle was also not examined for establishing her alleged allegation made in her report (Ex.D-2).
4. Lanjaram (PW-2) was the cousin of the Complainant and according to his testimony, it appears that his father Jagnu Ram was assaulted by the accused persons and further of his evidence would show that on the said fateful day, the respondents were abusing while using filthy words in the name of mother and sister and were threatened to kill and, he was assaulted by Mahadev with the aid of axe. He deposed further that the accused Sobaran has assaulted his father- Jagnu Ram with the aid of spade and Ramkumar and Dhansai were present on the spot. It reveals further from his testimony that the land in question was being cultivated by Thakur Ram, the father of the respondents and after his demise, the respondents are cultivating the land in question and their house was also situated on the alleged suit land. His statement is, thus, found to be deviated from the Complainant- Sahodari Paikara.
5. Dhansai (PW-3), who was the nephew of the Complainant has, however, stated that on the said fateful day, the respondents have not came with deadly weapons, as was alleged by the Complainant in her 4 alleged report (Ex.D-2), nor the alleged incident was seen by him, though he was shown to be the eye-witness. Likewise, is the statement of Ramkumar (PW-4), who was also shown to be the eye-witness according to the Complainant.
6. It, thus, appears from their testimonies that said Jagnu Ram, the uncle of the Complainant and Sagru Ram, the father of her were assaulted, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, they have not been examined and, even the Doctor, who medically examined them, has been examined.
7. In absence of the examination of said Jagnu Ram, the uncle of the Complainant and Sagru Ram, the father of her and, in absence of corroboration of her statement by Ramkumar (PW-4) and Dhansai (PW-3), vis-a-vis, non-examination of the Doctor, 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.
8. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
SD/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita