[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramsheela vs Parmanand on 26 February, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.02.26
17:33:44 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 388 of 2025
1 - Ramsheela W/o Shri Somnath Patel Aged About 38 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o
Village Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara,
Chhattisgarh
... appellant (s)
versus
1 - Parmanand S/o Phoolsingh Aged About 66 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Loknath S/o Kansram Aged About 50 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 - Vrindavan S/o Kansram Aged About 57 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4 - Dayaram S/o Kalapram Aged About 49 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
5 - Shobharam S/o Parmanand Aged About 50 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
6 - Mayaram S/o Kalapram Aged About 45 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
7 - Krishnachandra S/o Santram Aged About 56 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2
8 - Labhoram S/o Dayaram Aged About 23 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
9 - Kuso S/o Dayaram Aged About 23 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Maandeep,
Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
10 - Nandkumar S/o Parmanand Aged About 33 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
11 - Kalapram S/o Phoolsingh Aged About 75 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
12 - Dholchand S/o Vrindavan Aged About 26 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
13 - Budhiyarin W/o Kanshram Aged About 70 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village
Maandeep, Thana Bilaigarh,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For appellant (s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate
S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
26.02.2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. The present acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2020 passed by learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Criminal Appeal No.
88/2019 whereby the respondent/ accused persons have been
acquitted from the offence under Section 294, 506 (Part II), 323 (3
counts), 426 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna
Nivaran Act, 2005.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was the complainant in
the complaint case filed by her before the learned Judicial Magistrate
first Class, Bilaigarh, Dist- Balodabazar for which a Criminal Case No.
136/2013 was registered. She filed the complaint case with the
allegation that on 24.06.2010 at about 6 am, the accused persons
abused the complainant with filthy language and threatened her with
dire consequences. They also raised allegation that the complainant is
playing witchcraft and she was being assaulted by the accused persons
by hand and fists in causing mischief by demolishing the boundary wall
of her house. The complaint case was registered and trial was
commenced. The complainant did not appear in the trial for recording of
her evidence despite various opportunities were granted to her to
produce her evidence and only one witness Banshilal has been
examined on her behalf. Since, the complainant had not appeared in
the proceeding for recording of her evidence, the learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondent/ accused persons for the alleged offences
holding that the witness Banshilal has not supported the case of the
complainant and the complainant herself has not been examined,
therefore, there is no offence is made out against the respondent/
accused persons.
4. Since, the complainant has not appeared before the proceeding, the
complaint case filed by her was dismissed in absence of the
complainant while invoking of the provisions of 249 of Cr.P.C. vide order
dated 30.04.2018 and the accused persons were discharged. The said
order of discharge dated 30.04.2018 was challenged by the
complainant before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balodabazar
in Criminal Revision No. 58/2018 which was allowed vide order dated
12.03.2019 and directed the parties to appear before the learned trial
Court and the learned trial Court shall decide the case on merits. Again
the complainant failed to appear before the proceeding of the learned
trial Court and then the learned trial Court close the right to lead
evidence of the complainant and decided the case on 02.07.2019.
5. The judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2019 passed by learned trial
Court was challenged by the complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
before the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Balodabazar by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 88/2019 which has also been dismissed by the
learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2020 and
affirmed the order of acquittal of the accused persons which is under
challenged in the present acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although, the
complainant could not appear for recording of her evidence, but the
evidence of Banshilal has been recorded and he duly supported the
complainant's case that the complainant was being harassed and
assaulted by the accused persons, abused and threatened by them.
Therefore, the acquittal of the accused persons is erroneous and is
liable to be set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record
of the trial Court.
3. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that the
complainant could not appear before the learned trial Court for
recording of her evidence despite time was granted repeatedly. The
charges were framed on 24.04.2019 and the case was fixed for
recording evidence of the complainant witnesses but on 30.04.2019,
16.05.2019, 25.05.2019, 31.05.2019, 19.06.2019, despite time was
granted to produce the complainant's witnesses, the complainant failed
to present her witnesses and therefore, the right to lead evidence of the
complainant was forfeited and the case was fixed for recording of the
evidence of accused persons. Thereafter, recording the accused
statement, the judgment has been passed and the respondent/
accused persons have been acquitted by holding that since, the
complainant herself has not appeared for recording of her evidence,
there is no sufficient evidence to convict the appellant for the alleged
offence. From perusal of the evidence of Bansilal, who has been
examined on behalf of the complainant has not supported the
prosecution's case and he stated in his examination in chief that he did
not know about the incident and there was no incident in his presence.
In absence of any evidence against the respondent/ accused persons,
there cannot be any conviction against the accused persons. The
judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court as well as learned
Sessions Court are absolutely justified and the plausible view taken by
them by passing the judgment of acquittal, in which I do not find any
perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by learned trial Court as
well as learned Sessions Court, acquitting the respondent/ accused
persons from the alleged offences.
4. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
sagrika
