Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ramdev Kanwar on 22 June, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No. 189 of 2010
State of Chhattisgarh through the District
Magistrate, Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
Appellant
Versus
Ramdev Kanwar S/o Butul Kanwar, Aged about 32
years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Motipur, P.S.
Darima, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
Respondent
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment on Board
22/06/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 18/08/2005 by which learned
Sessions Judge, Surguja has acquitted the
respondent from charges punishable under Sections
452 and 307 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
07/03/2004 at about 5:30 PM at village Motipur P.S.
Darima, the appellant herein entered into the house
of Nan Mahadev (P.W.6) on the day of Holi festival
and on account of land dispute assaulted him with
an axe and caused grievous injuries on his head and
thereby, committed the offences under Sections 452
and 307 of IPC.
3. It is admitted position on record that appellant is
the younger brother of Nan Mahadev (P.W.6).
Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that
on 07/03/2004, Sunday, on the evening of Holi
festival, at about 05:30 PM, the appellant entered
into the house of his elder brother Nan Mahadev
(P.W.6) and threatened him that if Nan Mahadev did
not give him his share of the joint family property
then he will kill him and with the intention of
killing him, the appellant assaulted Nan Mahadev
with an axe on his head, right elbow and right knee
and injured him on account of which blood started
oozing from the injuries. Immediately thereafter,
injured Nan Mahadev (P.W.6) himself lodged a
report at Police Station Darima bearing Crime No.
20/04 against the appellant for offence punishable
under Sections 307 and 452 of IPC vide Ex. P/6
pursuant to which he was sent for medical
examination vide Ex. P/14 to the District Hospital,
Ambikapur. He was admitted at the hospital from
07/03/2004 to 23/04/2004. From the spot, blood
stained soil as well as plain soil were seized vide
Ex. P/1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/10 and
pursuant to recording memorandum statement of the
appellant vide Ex. P/3, axe as well as an iron rod
were seized from his possession vide Ex. P/11 and
after taking the appellant into custody the seized
articles were sent for chemical examination. The
FSL report has been filed as Ex. P/16. After due
investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for
the aforesaid offences and it was committed to the
Court of Session for hearing and disposal in
accordance with law. The appellant abjured his
guilt and entered into defence.
4. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, acquitted the
respondent from the aforesaid charges holding that
prosecution has failed to bring home the aforesaid
offences against the appellant herein.
5. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel on behalf
of the appellant/State, would submit that learned
Session Judge has committed grave legal error in
acquitting the respondent from offences punishable
under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC by recording a
finding which is perverse and contrary to the
record considering the statements of injured Nan
Mahadev (P.W.6) and his wife Smt. Jagpati Bai
(P.W.7), the impugned judgment of acquittal
deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent, would submit that Nan
Mahadev (P.W.6) and the appellant, both are
brothers and out of a pity dispute, some
altercation took place on the day of Holi festival
in the evening when Nan Mahadev (P.W.6) was
intoxicated and the incident took place and being
brothers, now they have settled their dispute
amicably, as such, the instant appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant/State, considered his submissions and
perused the record with utmost circumspection.
8. A careful perusal of the record would show that the
eyewitness namely Ramjeet (P.W.1) and Puran Singh
(P.W.4) have not supported the case of the
prosecution and they have been declared hostile and
even in the crossexamination they have not made
any statement with regard to the prosecution case.
Similarly, learned trial Court has found the
statements of complainant Nan Mahadev (P.W.6) and
his wife Smt. Jagpati Bai (P.W.7) to be
contradictory and suspicious. Furthermore, the
memorandum witness namely Nan Singh (P.W.2) has
been declared hostile and the trial Court has found
that the incident took place on the day of Holi
festival and both the appellant as well as his
brother injured Nan Mahadev (P.W.6) were in
intoxicated condition and the dispute between them
was with regard to the joint family property. In
that view of the matter, learned trial Court
proceeded to acquit the respondent herein from
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of
IPC.
9. It is well settled law that in an appeal against
acquittal, two views are possible. In the instant
case, one view has been taken by the trial Court
which is not at all perverse or contrary to the
record. As such, we do not find any perversity or
illegality warranting interference in the judgment
of the trial Court.
10. The instant appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Harneet
