Chattisgarh High Court
Laxman Lalwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
signed
by
AMIT
PATEL
2026:CGHC:13877-DB
The date when The date when the The date when the
the judgment is judgment is judgment is uploaded on
reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
03.02.2026 24.03.2026 -- 24.03.2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 99 of 2017
Laxman Lalwani S/o Wadhumal Lalwani Aged About 43 Years R/o Aamapara
Ward, Dhamtari, Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,
... Appellant
versus
1 -State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
2 - Ashok Kumar Jasuja S/o Bhimandas Jasuja Aged About 44 Years R/o Dak
Bangalaw Ward Dhamtari, Police Station, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Rajkumari (Died And Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated -
16-09-2025
.... Respondents
(Cause Title Taken From CIS System)
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. R.S. Patel and Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocates.
For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate
2
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
C A V Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned First Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 03/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents No. 2 and 3/accused of offence under Section 307/34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2007, a complaint case was filed by the appellant/complainant- Laxman Lalwani against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that on 13.07.2005, accused/respondent No. 2- Ashok Kumar Jasuja had asked the appellant /complainant- Laxman Lalwani to accompany him for having dinner at Balod Gehan hotel (dhaba) and they proceeded towards the hotel (dhaba) in a Maruti Zen car owned by respondent No.2. It is alleged that on the way accused/respondent No. 3 Rajkumari Tolani also accompanied them. Further case of the appellant/complainant is that he had his meals at Balod Gehan hotel (dhaba) along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in an isolated place near Jagtara temple, respondent No. 2 requested the appellant/complainant to stop the vehicle saying that he had to ease himself and when they got down for the same, in the meanwhile respondent No. 2 started assaulting him repeatedly with sharp edged weapon on his head from backside, then the appellant/complainant asked him as to why he was assaulting him, 3 but he kept on doing so and several injuries were caused to him as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. It is further alleged that after about 14-15 days of the incident at Ram Krishna Surgical Hospital, Raipur, the appellant regained consciousness, but on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him, he lost his memory and was under treatment for about five months. During this period, he regained his memory and came to know that in the incident, he sustained several injuries and there were 50 stitches on his head, his right ear was half amputated. The appellant/complainant has also stated in the incident, his eardrum was also damaged and likewise, on account of injury on his right eye, it turned blackish. It is alleged that on recovery and after regaining his memory, the appellant came to know about the fact that initially he was hospitalized in the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari by respondent No. 2 himself who tried to fabricate the incident as an accident and lodged the report. The appellant/complainant had further stated that he never met with an accident as shown by respondent No.2 and in fact respondent No.2 had assaulted him with an intention to cause his death and accused/respondent No. 3 was also one of those involved in the conspiracy. It has also been alleged that after partial recovery, on 23.04.2006 and 24.04.2006, the complaint was made by the appellant/complainant to the higher officers and to the Home Ministry. The appellant/complainant came to know that after the said incident, the accused/Respondent No. 2 brought the complainant Laxman Lalwani in his car to the Purur forest barrier and from there, Tejram Sahu brought the complainant to Dhamtari. The complainant had also came to know that respondent No. 2/accused left him in a dying state 4 in his own car and went to Nankani petrol pump Gurur to buy 5 liters of petrol in a jericane, but the employee of the petrol pump did not give the same. Later, the complainant came to know this fact that a case had been registered against the accused/respondent No. 2 for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and then he filed a complaint against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents No. 2 an 3 of charges punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct perspective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondents/accused, but despite the same the accused/ respondents have been acquitted. The trial Court has wrongly placed reliance upon the documents which were placed on record during the course of trial of Criminal Case No. 258/2006. In Criminal Revision, by order dated 21.02.2012, directions were issued for framing of charge under Section 307/34 of IPC against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate that the case of the appellant/complainant before the learned trial Court was that the injuries to the appellant are being caused by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further stated that learned trial Court has committed a mistake by placing a reliance upon the court deposition of Ashok 5 Desuja (DW-1) and Head Constable-Radhey Raman Pandey (DW-2). In catena of cases, it has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the court deposition of the injured person has a high probative value. Despite of that the evidence adduced by the appellant /complainant was not considered by learned trial Court in the proper perspective. He next submits that learned trial Court has miserable failed to appreciate that the injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body of the appellant, which unequivocally establishes the intention and knowledge of the respondents to cause death. The multiplicity of injuries and the manner of assault further reinforce the existence of a clear mens rea consistent with an offence under Section 307 IPC. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved that the respondents acted with the requisite intention and knowledge to cause the death of the appellant/complainant. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that medical evidence acts as a strong corroborative factor, lending assurance to the ocular testimony of the injured witness and the cumulative effect of medical and ocular evidence clearly establishes the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider that even if death did not ensue, the act squarely falls within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. The impugned judgment suffers from patent illegality as the learned trial Court has adopted a selective and fragmented approach while appreciating the evidence on record. Material evidence led by the prosecution has either been ignored or brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons, whereas undue weight has been given to the defence version, which is inherently weak and unsubstantiated. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is 6 perverse and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of State of U.P. vs. M.L. Anthony 1, State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Anr.2 & Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors. 3 and in the matter of Vakil Kumar Devta and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh4 by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the State supporting the argument of counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order in a cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material available on record and the accused/ respondent No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the said offences. The learned Trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The benefit of doubt has been extended in a mechanical manner, without there being any reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper,incorrect and is liable to be set aside.
5. Ex adverso, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the respondent No. 2/accused of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 1 AIR 1985 SC48 2 1988 AIR 2154 3 AIR 2004 SCC 1053 4 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 5968 7
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that it framed charges under Section 307 in alternate Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused/respondents No. 2 and 3 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted accused/Respondent Nos. 2 of the aforesaid charges on the ground that, in respect of the same incident, Respondent No. 2 had previously been tried under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC and was acquitted by a competent Court. Subsequently, the complainant filed the complaint case. The Trial Court further held that the complainant had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and thereby acquitted the accused/respondent No. 2 of the said charges.
8. PW-1- Laxman Lalwani deposed that on 13.07.2005, the accused, Ashok Jasuja assaulted him on the head with sharp edged weapon resembling knife, while the accused, Rajkumari struck him on the face with an iron rod, as a result of which, he fell down and lost consciousness. He further stated that he regained consciousness after approximately 14-15 days at Ram Krishna Hospital, due to the grievous nature of his injuries, he initially suffered memory loss and remained under medical treatment for about five to six months. During this period, he gradually regained his memory and thereafter apprised to his family members of the said incident.
During his cross-examination, the witness admitted that the incident occurred on 13.07.2005, he filed the complaint on 10.01.2007 and he 8 was discharged from Ram Krishna Hospital after nine days. He further admitted that a charge-sheet had been filed against the accused- Ashok at Police Station- Gurur in connection with the same incident for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.
In para 25 of his cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was a witness in the accident case instituted against the accused and that he had appeared to depose before the Court of Smt. Pratima Verma, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod.
9. PW-2 Deepa Lalwani, wife of the complainant (PW-1) has supported the statement of her husband. In her cross-examination, she admitted the defence's suggestion that the accused- Ashok visited her husband at Ram Krishna Hospital. She further admitted that after the incident, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, he came to her to get a rakhi tied from her. She also admitted that she tore her scarf (chunari) and tied it on his hand in gratitude for admitting her husband.
10. PW-3, Dr. S.N. Madhariya, deposed that he was posted as a Neurosurgeon at Ram Krishna Hospital and that the complainant/ injured- Laxman Lalwani was admitted on 14.07.2005 and discharged on 23.07.2005.
In cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant/ injured was fully conscious when brought to the hospital and that his history explicitly recorded an R.T.A., indicating a road traffic accident.
11. PW-4 Dr. Roshan Upadhyay, deposed that he was posted as a Surgeon at Christian Hospital from the year 2002 to 2007 and the complainant/injured- Laxman Lalwani, was brought to the hospital for treatment on 13.07.2005.
9
During his cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex. P/2 the presence of liquor's smell was written and also clearly written that the incident occurred as a result of the road traffic accident.
12. PW-5, Vikash Kumar Lalwani, stated that on 13.07.2005, he saw a blue car near Purur in which the complainant, Laxman Lalwani was seated along with the accused. He observed that blood was oozing from Laxman's head. On inquiring about the incident from the accused- Ashok, he received no explanation of the same and instead Ashok told him to mind his own business. Then, he proceeded to Dhamtari. Later, he came to know that his family members had taken Laxman to Christian Hospital in Dhamtari for medical treatment and upon reaching the hospital, Laxman was referred to Raipur for further specialized care.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that despite seeing his uncle Laxman Lalwani seriously injured, he made no attempt to take him to the hospital immediately.
13. PW-6, Rakesh Dadlani and PW-7, Kanhaiya Lalwani have deposed that they received information over the telephone that an incident had occurred involving the complainant- Laxman Lalwani. They were informed that he had sustained injuries and had been taken to the hospital for treatment.
14. PW-8 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Dhruw, deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer at Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, from February 2005 to September 2006. He examined the injured- Laxman Lalwani on 14.07.2005, found four injuries and referred him to a higher center for 10 neurosurgical and plastic surgical treatment. The discharge ticket is marked as Ex. P/3.
During cross-examination, he admitted that the discharge ticket (Ex. P/3) specifically recorded the incident as the road traffic accident and further admitted that the injured person was under the influence of liquor at the time of his medical examination.
15. PW-9 Ajay Lalwani, son of the complainant- Laxman Lalwani, deposed that on 13.07.2005, the accused- Ashok forcibly took his father out for dinner. At approximately 10:00-10:15 PM, his mother informed him over the phone that Ashok had stated that an accident had occurred. When the witness inquired from the accused about the incident, the accused stated that the accident was caused by a buffalo. On the other hand, when the his mother asked the accused regarding the same, he gave a different version, stating that the accident had been caused by a truck.
During cross-examination, he admitted that before he reached the spot, the accused- Ashok had arranged a vehicle for his father. He further admitted that they jointly took out his father from the Zen car and made him sit into Tejram Sahu's vehicle and thereby the accused along with his father in the car brought to the Bathena hospital.
16. Respondent No. 2- Ashok Jasuja, examined himself as a defence witness and stated that he had gone with the complainant- Laxman Lalwani for dinner. While returning to Dhamtari after the meal, their vehicle met with an accident about one kilometre ahead, there was a loud bang and their car was thrown off the left side of the road. He stated that he then reversed the vehicle back onto the road and while 11 supporting and consoling Laxman Lalwani proceeded towards Dhamtari Masih Hospital.
In para 10 of his examination, he stated that on Raksha Bandhan in 2005, the wife of Laxman Lalwani called him to their house, where Laxman Lalwani mentioned having incurred certain expenses. Two to three days later, Laxman Lalwani visited his medical shop and informed him that he had consulted a lawyer regarding filing an insurance claim. He replied that his vehicle was insured only under a third-party policy. Laxman Lalwani stated that as per his lawyer, a claim case could still be made, if he admitted negligence, though he refused to do so. Thereupon, Laxman Lalwani became upset, stated that he had incurred expenses of approximately ₹2.5 lakh and demanded that he pay the said amount, which he refused.
In para 12, he stated that an offence under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC was registered at Police Station- Gurur in connection with the incident. The matter was tried before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Balod and after about one and a half years of trial, he was acquitted.
He filed certified copy of criminal case for his defence as Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/8
17. DW-2 Head Constable- Radhe Raman Pandey has deposed that he recorded the statement of accused- Ashok Jasuja vide Ex. P/7.
18. The learned trial Court carefully and meticulously examined both the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence. All documents filed by the parties were duly considered. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution 12 witnesses were not reliable. It is further noteworthy to mention that in relation to the same incident, an accident case was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC at Police Station - Gurur against the accused/respondent No.2, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The accused- Ashok Jasuja was ultimately acquitted of those charges levelled against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod and the certified documents of the criminal Court (Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/8) remain unrebutted. The record also reflects that the complainant/appellant was aware of the aforementioned accident case and had appeared as a witness before the concerned Court, yet did not file any complaint with the competent authority or Court at that time. The present complaint was filed against the accused only two years after the incident by the complainant/appellant, which is indicative of inordinate delay and raises serious doubts regarding the credibility and veracity of the allegations. Considering the totality of evidence, the trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was therefore, a result of proper and judicious appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. In the circumstances, the benefit of doubt rightly accrued to the accused and the trial Court's decision to acquit him is based on sound legal reasoning and cannot be interfered with.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka 5 has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the 5 (2024) AIR SC 1252 13 promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--
inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible 14 and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
21. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
AMIT PATEL