Mahesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 731 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026

                                                          1 / 13




                                                                            2026:CGHC:13314
                                                                                             NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                   CRA No. 790 of 2016
                     1 - Dilip Kumar Patel S/o Birjhu Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Karda,
                     Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara,
                     Chhattisgarh.
                     2 - Kripa Shankar Kewat (Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-11-
                     2025.
                     3 - Mohan Patel S/o Sagar Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karda,
                     Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara,
                     Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                       ---Appellants
                                                         versus
                     State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kasdol, Civil And Revenue
                     District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      --- Respondent

                     For Appellants            :       Ms. Yatika Verma, Advocate

                     For Respondent/State      :       Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

Shivkumar Sahu S/o Pakluram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Karda, Chauki Lawan, Thana Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

-- Respondent Digitally ASHUTOSH signed by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA

For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

1 - Narayan Patel S/o Dukhram Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Komal Sahu S/o Darshan Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Kamalnarayan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhuneshwar S/o Tulsi Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Santosh Sahu S/o Son Sai Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Samaru Patel S/o Mukundi Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Aajuram S/o Shivcharan Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 8 - Nandau Sahu S/o Baratu Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

9 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Anandram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karda, Out Post Chowki - Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
                                                                --- Respondent

For Appellants           :       Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate

For Respondent/State     :       Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Baratu Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh,

-- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

Ajitaram Sahu S/o Feru Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellant Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

1 - Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Ajitaram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajit Sahu S/o Feru Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Lalmohan Patel S/o Damodar Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Murari Sahu S/o Vishram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

1 - Tiharu Ram Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Patel S/o Bhikhari Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karda Police Chowki Lawan, Police Station Kasdol, In The Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kasdol, Civil And Rev. Distt. Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

1 - Jeedhan Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o - Village - Karda, Chowki - Lawan, Police Station - Kasdol, District Revenue And Civil - Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Kisan Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Karda, Chowki-Lawan, Police Station - Kasdol, District - Revenue And Civil Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---Appellants

Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Kasdol - District Revenue And Civil Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellants : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate through legal aid

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

19/03/2026

1. During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2016, it has been

brought on record that appellant No. 2, namely Kripa Shankar Kewat,

has expired on 02.12.2022. In view of the order passed by this Court on

11/11/2025, the appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No. 2.

Accordingly, the present appeal is being considered only in respect of

the remaining appellants.

2. All these criminal appeals are being heard and decided together as the

common thread passes through.

3. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants under

Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the

impugned judgment dated 15/06/2016 passed by the 1 st Additional

Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. in

Sessions Case No.22/2015 whereby the appellants have been convicted

for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 186, 294, 353 and 332 of

the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced as follows: for the offence

under Section 147 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one

year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo imprisonment for 15 days; for the offence under Section 186

IPC, to undergo imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days;

for the offence under Section 294 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for

three months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo imprisonment for 15 days; for the offence under Section

353 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-,

in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one

month; and for the offence under Section 332 IPC, to undergo

imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Constable Meghnath Sahu

has given a written application to the Kasdol police station that he is

working as a constable at Lavan outpost. On 26.01.2015, he went to

Balodbazar development block to maintain peace and order for the

Panchayat elections. On 27.01.2015, he was posted with the polling

parties for duty at polling booth no. 44 of Karda village. On 28.01.2015,

when the polling was going on, at about 03.00 pm, the accused

Anilkumar Sahu, Manoj Kumar Patel, Santosh Kumar Sahu, Mahesh

Sahu, Ajita Sahu and his son Shivkumar Sahu, Dilip Patel and 20-25

other people, in collusion with their other companions, started abusing

him by using filthy language, saying that he was increasing the crowd.

Hearing this, he was dragged out of the duty place by holding his hair.

They were thrown out and trying to beat up the polling parties. They

started creating ruckus, seeing which he was punished, he tried to keep

the polling parties safe, on which they tried to kill him and beat him

badly with their hands and fists and created fear and snatched his purse

and looted Rs. 2000/- kept in the purse and the Sonata worth Rs. 1000/-

worn on his hand, he called the higher officials and locked the room to

save himself and the polling parties, then they started pelting stones from

outside and tore the duty certificate into pieces and threw it, cut the

uniform, watch, whistle, rope and threw it at the spot. The people from

the polling party and the agent have seen and heard the incident. Due to

the beating, there is a lot of pain in the back, arms, hands, face, head.

5. Based on the above written report, the police station concerned found

prima facie offences of sections 147, 186, 332, 353, 294, 395 of IPC

committed against the accused and after completing the investigation,

presented the charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Kasdol. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, it was handed

over to the Sessions Court.

6. Charges were framed against the accused under sections 147, 186, 332,

353, 294, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the plea of the accused was

taken. On the accused denying the charges, the case was taken into trial

and after examination of evidence, statement of accused was recorded

from the accused under section 313 of the CrPC. In the statement taken,

the accused have answered most of the questions as "I don't know", "It is

wrong".

7. The accused were admitted to the defence under Section 233 CrPC, on

which the accused expressed their desire not to give any defence

evidence and no witness was examined in their defence.

8. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted

the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the

judgment passed by the trial Court is not proper and is against the

evidence on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is

submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is mainly based on

the statement of PW-2 Meghnath Sahu (complainant/injured). PW-2

Meghnath Sahu has clearly stated that he did not know the accused

persons earlier and he identified them only by face. It is further

submitted that in the FIR (Ex.P/3), there is no mention as to how the

accused persons were identified, which creates serious doubt

regarding their identity. Learned counsel further submit that no Test

Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. PW-2 Meghnath Sahu has

admitted that he identified the accused persons in the police station

after their arrest. Such identification in the police station has no value

in law. No panchnama was prepared and no Magistrate was present at

that time. Even the Investigating Officer has stated that no TIP was

conducted as it was not required. Therefore, the identity of the

accused persons has not been properly proved. It is further submitted

that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case

and have turned hostile. It is further submitted that PW-1 Aasit

Toppo, who was posted at polling booth, has also not clearly

supported the prosecution version. Similarly, PW-13 Buddhelal has

stated that he was inside the room and had not seen the incident, and

PW-18 Devendra Kumar Sahu has stated that due to crowd there was

disturbance outside but nothing happened inside. These statements

do not support the prosecution case of assault by the accused persons.

It is also submitted that the doctor PW-19 Dr. K.P. Tandon has only

proved simple injuries, which are not sufficient to connect the

accused persons with the offence.

10. Learned counsel further submit that some of the accused persons

have been implicated only on the basis of memorandum statements,

which cannot be relied upon without any recovery or other

supporting evidence. It is also submitted that the trial Court itself has

acquitted the accused persons under Section 395 IPC, holding that

the prosecution failed to prove the allegation of loot. This clearly

shows that the prosecution case is doubtful, but still the trial Court

wrongly convicted the appellants for other offences. It is submitted

that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has

convicted the appellants on weak and unreliable evidence. Therefore,

it is prayed that the appeals be allowed, the judgment of conviction

and sentence be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted.

11. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the

trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and

the receipts produced by the learned counsel for the appellant with

regard to payment of fine amount, the same is taken on record.

13. Perusal of the documents would show that PW-2 Meghnath Sahu has

stated that the accused persons assaulted him. However, in his cross-

examination, he has clearly admitted that he did not know the accused

persons prior to the incident and that he identified them only by their

faces. It is important to note that in the FIR (Ex.P/3), there is no mention

as to how the accused persons were identified. This creates serious doubt

regarding the identity of the accused persons. PW-2 Meghnath Sahu has

further admitted that after the arrest of the accused persons, he identified

them in the police station. Admittedly, no identification panchnama was

prepared by the police or the Investigating Officer in this regard. It is

also admitted that at the time of such identification, no Executive

Magistrate such as SDM or Tehsildar was present.

14. The Investigating Officer has clearly stated that no Test Identification

Parade (TIP) was conducted as it was not required. This explanation is

not acceptable. When the accused persons were not known to the

witness, conducting TIP was necessary. Identification of accused persons

in the police station, in presence of police officials, cannot be treated as

reliable evidence. Such identification is not in accordance with law and

has no evidentiary value.

15. Thus, it is clear that the identity of the accused persons has not been

proved beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from PW-2 Meghnath Sahu, the

other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-3 Milandas, PW-4 Mahavir, PW-5

Hiralal Sahu, PW-6 Dayasagar Manhare, PW-7 Hemlal, PW-8 Sushil

Kumar, PW-9 Shyamdas, PW-11 Nandram, PW-12 Santaram Yadav,

PW-13 Buddhelal Sahu, PW-14 Devcharan, PW-15 Rup Singh Diwan,

PW-16 Khemulal Fekar, PW-21 Ashish Kumar, PW-22 Amardas have

not supported the prosecution case and have not identified the accused

persons.

16. Further, PW-1 Aasit Toppo, who was posted at polling booth, has not

clearly supported the prosecution case. Similarly, PW-13 Buddhelal

Sahu has stated that he was inside the room and had not seen the

incident, and PW-18 Devendra Kumar Sahu has stated that due to crowd

there was disturbance outside but nothing had happened inside. Even the

polling officer of Booth No. 44 has not supported the prosecution case

and has not identified the accused persons.

17. The only supporting witness is the doctor, i.e., PW-19 Dr. K.P. Tandon,

who has proved the injuries. However, the medical evidence only shows

that injuries were caused, but it does not connect the accused persons

with the alleged offence. It is also found that some of the accused

persons have been implicated on the basis of memorandum statements.

However, the independent witnesses of the memorandum statements

have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the

prosecution and further no incriminating material have been seized,

therefore, such memorandum statements are not sufficient to prove the

guilt of the accused persons in absence of any recovery or corroborative

evidence.

18. Further, the learned trial Court itself has acquitted the accused persons

under Section 395 IPC, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove

the allegation of loot. This finding clearly shows that the prosecution

story is doubtful.

19. Thus, considering that the identity of the accused persons has not been

proved; the main witness PW-2 Meghnath Sahu is not reliable on

identification; no TIP was conducted, other witnesses have turned

hostile; there is no independent corroboration, this Court is of the

opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

20. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is found

to be incorrect and not based on proper appreciation of evidence.

21. The appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all

the charges.

22. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a

period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481

of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

23. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary

action. SD/-

SD/-

       SD/-                                                     (Arvind Kumar Verma)
                                                                      JUDGE

ashu