[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kalam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:13660-DB
The date when The date when The date when the
the judgment is the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
06.02.2026 23.03.2026 -- 23.03.2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 392 of 2018
Kalam Sahu S/o Shri Aajuram Sahu, Aged About 62 Years
Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Reewapar, Thana And
Tahsil Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Mungeli
District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
2. Shatrughan Sahu S/o Shri Jhaduram Sahu Aged About 60
Years R/o Village Reewapar, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli Civil
And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
3. Mohan Sahu S/o Shri Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 27 Years
R/o Village Reewapar, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli Civil And
Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
4. Khamhan Sahu S/o Shri Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 22
Years R/o Village Reewapar, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli Civil
2
And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
5. Senkumar @ Buttu Sahu S/o Shri Shatuhan Sahu Aged
About 20 Years R/o Village Reewapar, Thana And Tahsil
Mungeli Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
ACQA No. 64 of 2019
State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate,
District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..
---Appellant
Versus
1. Shatruhan Sahu S/o Jhadu Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years
R/o Village Reevapar, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli,
District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh..
2. Mohan Sahu S/o Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Reevapar, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli,
District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
3. Khamhan Sahu S/o Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 22 Years
R/o Village Reevapar, Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli,
District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
4. Sen Kumar @ Buttu Sahu S/o Shatruhan Sahu Aged About
20 Years R/o Village Reevapar, Police Station- City Kotwali,
Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate in ACQA
No.392/2018 and Ms. Nand Kumari
Kashyap, P.L. in ACQA No.64/2019
For Res. Nos. 1 in : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L.
ACQA No.392/2018
For : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate with
Respondent/accused C.K. Sahu and Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla,
Advocates.
D.B. : Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
3
(C.A.V. Judgment)
Per Rajani Dubey, J
1. Since the aforesaid acquittal appeals arise out of the same
impugned judgment of acquittal, they are being heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The ACQA No. 392/2018 has been preferred by the
appellant/victim and ACQA No.64/2019 has been preferred
by appellant/State against the judgment dated 31.05.2018
passed in Sessions Trial No.42/2015 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby
the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused persons
under Section 323, 323/34 of IPC for causing injury to
injured Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu, acquitted them of the
charges punishable under Sections 294, 506-2, 323/34 (for
victim/injured Rajmati), 307/34 and 307/34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.2015, at
Village Reevapar, Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli,
complainants Dilpa Sahu, Kalam Sahu, Rajmati, and Ishwari
Sahu were engaged in weeding paddy in their agricultural
field. At about 12:30 PM, accused persons, namely
Shatrughan Sahu, Mohan Sahu, Buttu @ Sen Kumar, and
Khamhan Sahu, forming an unlawful assembly armed with
sticks and lathis, came to the spot and objected to the
complainants that they were cultivating and raising the
boundary of their (accuseds') field. The accused persons
abused the complainants in filthy language and threatened
them with dire consequences, including threats to kill.
Thereafter, they assaulted Dilpa Sahu, Kalam Sahu, and
Rajmati with lathis in a manner likely to cause death. The
incident was witnessed by Man Singh and Lal Singh, who
were working in a nearby field. They intervened and pacified
the accused persons. The injured persons were then shifted
to Mungeli Hospital after informing Ambulance 108 for
medical treatment. After primary treatment, considering the
serious condition of Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu, they were
referred to CIMS, Bilaspur. An intimation was sent to Police
Station City Kotwali Mungeli through hospital memo on
13.07.2015. On the basis of such information, Crime No.
316/2015 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali
Mungeli, and investigation was undertaken.
4. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were
medically examined and medical opinions were obtained.
Statements of the injured persons and other witnesses were
recorded. A spot map (Nazri Naksha) of the place of
occurrence was prepared. Blood-stained soil and plain soil
were seized from the spot. Memorandum statements of the
accused persons were recorded, and the lathis allegedly
used in the commission of the offence were seized. Blood-
stained clothes of the injured persons were also seized and
sent for medical and chemical examination, and the reports
were obtained. Medical documents with regard to the
treatment of the injured persons were seized.
5. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was
filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 and 325 of IPC
before the competent Court followed by charge under
Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34, 307/34 and 307/34 of
IPC by the learned Trial Court.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as
many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the
accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded
innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, no
witness has been examined by the accused.
7. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the
respective parties and considering the material available on
record, by the impugned judgment, while convicting the
accused persons under Section 323, 323/34 of IPC for
causing injury to injured Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu,
acquitted them of the charges punishable under Sections
294, 506-2, 323/34 (for victim/injured Rajmati), 307/34 and
307/34 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the
complainant/appellant and the State.
8. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the
complainant/appellant submits that the impugned judgment
of acquittal is wholly contrary to the evidence available on
record and is liable to be set aside. It was contended that
the learned trial Court had erred in discarding the cogent
and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses, whose
versions were consistent and corroborative on all material
particulars. All the injured witnesses have categorically
deposed that the accused/respondents abused them in filthy
language, assaulted them, and caused injuries. Their
testimony was duly supported by the medical evidence of
PW-5 and PW-7, as well as by the Medico-Legal
Certificates (MLC reports), which clearly established the
injuries sustained by the victims. It has been further
submitted that copies of the statements of the witnesses
had been filed along with the petition and were marked as
Annexure A-1, demonstrating the consistency and reliability
of the prosecution case. Learned counsel further argued
that the testimony of the injured witnesses, which carried
greater evidentiary value, was fully corroborated by the
independent eye-witnesses present at the spot. It was
submitted that minor omissions and contradictions, which
did not go to the root of the prosecution case, could not be
made a ground to discard the otherwise trustworthy
evidence of the injured witnesses. The learned trial Court,
according to the counsel, failed to appreciate this settled
principle of law and wrongly disbelieved the prosecution
evidence on insignificant discrepancies. It has been also
contended that the learned trial Judge had not properly
appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution regarding
the seizure of the weapons used in the commission of the
offence. The prosecution has duly proved the seizure of the
weapons through the testimony of the Investigating Officer,
however, the learned trial Court unjustifiably placed undue
reliance upon the testimony of memorandum and seizure
witnesses while ignoring the clear and convincing evidence
of the Investigating Officer, thereby arriving at an erroneous
conclusion. It has been also submitted that the learned trial
Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity
and had committed a serious error in overlooking the
substantive evidence of the injured witnesses. By giving
undue weight to minor contradictions and ignoring the
overall consistency of the prosecution case, the learned trial
Court has acquitted the accused/respondents in a manner
that was perverse and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside and
the accused/respondents be convicted in accordance with
law.
9. Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, learned P.L. for the
State/appellant in ACQA No. 64/2019 submits that the
impugned judgment of acquittal is vitiated by serious errors
of law and fact and, therefore, was liable to be set aside. It
has been contended that the learned Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the oral and medical evidence available
on record and had erroneously extended the benefit of
doubt to the accused persons despite the prosecution
having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has
been further submitted that the acquittal of the accused
persons under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code was
wholly unjustified. The learned Trial Court, though
discussing the evidence in paragraph 7 of the judgment,
failed to consider that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had specifically
deposed regarding the use of obscene and abusive
language by the accused persons. Notably, there was no
effective cross-examination on this aspect, and P.W.2 had
even reproduced the obscene words used. In the absence
of any rebuttal, the ingredients of the offence under Section
294 IPC stood clearly established, and the finding of
acquittal on this count is perverse. The learned Panel
Lawyer further argued that the acquittal under Section
323/34 IPC in respect of injuries caused to Rajmati (P.W.8)
was equally erroneous. Rajmati has categorically described
the manner in which she was assaulted, and her testimony
was duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6, Dr.
Kamlesh Sahu, who proved her complaint of back pain and
the medical report (Ex. P-18). The Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate this corroborated evidence while
recording acquittal. It has been also submitted that the
learned Trial Court gravely erred in acquitting the accused
persons of the charge under Section 307/34 IPC. The
evidence of injured witnesses Dilpa Sahu (P.W.1) and
Kalam Sahu (P.W.2) clearly established that the accused
persons, armed with lathis and dandas, had assaulted them
on vital parts of the body, including the head. Their injuries
were medically proved by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.-6) and
Dr. R. Jitpure (P.W.-7). The X-ray examination confirmed
fracture of the ulna bone of the left forearm of Kalam Sahu,
which constituted a grievous injury. The nature of weapons
used, the manner of assault, and the conduct of the
accused persons clearly reflected the requisite intention and
knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC. The Trial
Court, however, erroneously diluted the offence and
convicted the accused persons only under Sections 323 and
323/34 IPC, ignoring the settled principle that for an offence
under Section 307 IPC, the intention coupled with overt act
is material and not merely the extent of injury.
10. It has been further argued that both injured witnesses
remained hospitalized for several days--Dilpa Sahu from
13.07.2015 to 22.07.2015 with a fracture of the right patella,
and Kalam Sahu from 13.07.2015 to 20.07.2015 with a
fractured ulna bone. Such injuries could not, by any stretch
of imagination, be termed as simple injuries. The medical
evidence unequivocally supported the prosecution case, yet
the Trial Court failed to assign due weight to the same. The
learned Panel Lawyer also contended that the mere fact
that some witnesses did not fully support the prosecution
case could not render the entire prosecution version
doubtful, particularly when the injured witnesses themselves
had given cogent, consistent, and reliable testimony. The
Trial Court erred in discarding trustworthy evidence on
minor discrepancies and in drawing an unwarranted
inference that the complainant party was the aggressor,
despite there being no legally admissible evidence to
substantiate such a conclusion. It has been also submitted
that the accused persons have failed to offer any plausible
explanation in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to
rebut the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them. In such circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the
learned Trial Court by granting benefit of doubt was
unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused persons
be convicted in accordance with law.
11. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for
the accused/respondents submits that the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was well-
reasoned, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and
did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material
irregularity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court. It
was contended that the scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal is limited, and unless the findings recorded
by the Trial Court are manifestly erroneous or wholly
unreasonable, the same ought not to be disturbed. It was
further argued that the learned Trial Court meticulously
examined the oral and medical evidence on record and had
rightly found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses were
closely related and interested witnesses, and their
testimonies contained material contradictions and omissions
which went to the root of the matter. The Trial Court, having
had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses,
rightly assessed their credibility and found their evidence
unreliable to the extent alleged by the prosecution. With
regard to the charge under Section 294 IPC, learned Sr.
counsel submitted that mere allegation of abuse was not
sufficient unless the exact obscene words were proved to
have been uttered in a public place causing annoyance. The
Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, found that the
essential ingredients of the offence were not satisfactorily
established. Such a finding, being based on evidence, did
not call for interference. In respect of the injuries allegedly
sustained by the complainant party, it was contended that
the medical evidence did not conclusively support the
prosecution version of a brutal and life-threatening assault.
The nature of injuries, except the alleged fracture, was
simple in nature. Even regarding the fracture, there was no
evidence to establish that the same was inflicted with the
intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307
IPC. It was submitted that for constituting an offence under
Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intention or
knowledge to cause death, which was conspicuously absent
in the present case. The mere fact that a fracture occurred
would not automatically bring the case within the ambit of
attempt to murder. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted
that the Trial Court had rightly considered the possibility of a
sudden quarrel arising out of a land dispute and had found
that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the
occurrence. The defence version that the complainant party
was the aggressor was not adequately ruled out by the
prosecution. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt
was rightly extended to the accused persons. It was also
argued that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution case,
hostile witnesses, and lack of independent corroboration
created serious doubt about the prosecution story. The Trial
Court, after comprehensive evaluation of the entire
evidence, had convicted the accused only to the extent
proved and acquitted them of the graver charges. Such a
balanced approach demonstrated proper judicial application
of mind rather than perversity.
In support of her submission, learned Sr. Counsel
placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 149.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
13. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that
the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections
charge under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34, 307/34
and 307/34 of IPC by the learned Trial Court, and after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Trial Court while convicting the accused persons under
Section 323, 323/34 of IPC for causing injury to injured
Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu, acquitted them of the charges
punishable under Sections 294, 506-2, 323/34 (for
victim/injured Rajmati), 307/34 and 307/34 of IPC..
14. Complainant Dilpa Sahu (PW-1) has stated that on the date
of the incident, at about 12:00 noon, when his father Kamal,
mother Rajmati, and brother's wife Ishwari were engaged in
weeding work in the field, the accused/respondents
Shatrughan, Mohan Sahu, and Buttu came near their field
carrying bamboo sticks and started assaulting him while
abusing him in the name of his mother and sister. He has
further stated that all the four accused/respondents caused
injuries to him on his head, right leg, hand, and chest. He
has also deposed that while he was present there, all the
four accused/respondents started assaulting his father as
well, and he (this witness) fell injured. Thereafter,
accused/respondent Shatrughan also hit his mother Rajmati
on her back with a stick. At that time, Man Singh and Lalji,
who were putting manure in their field, came running to the
spot, upon which the accused/respondents, thinking him
(this witness) to be dead, left him and fled away. Thereafter,
he went to the police station and lodged a report. He has
further stated that he was taken to CIMS, Bilaspur, where he
remained admitted for two months. His X-ray was
conducted, and his leg was operated upon, in which a rod
was inserted.
15. Kalam Sahu (PW-2), Man Singh Sahu (PW-3), Laljee (PW-
4) and Rajmati (PW-8) have supported the statement of
complainant and stated that accused/respondents
committed maarpeet with Dilpa Sahu (PW-1) and Kalam
Sahu (PW-2) & they sustained injuries in the incident.
16. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (PW-6) is the doctor who examined the
complainant/injured Dilpa Sahu (PW-1) and gave his report
(Ex. P-16), wherein he noted a lacerated wound on the
middle of the forehead measuring 4" × ½", deep up to the
bone, along with swelling and tenderness on the right
shoulder region and swelling and tenderness on the right
knee joint. The doctor also medically examined injured
Kalam Sahu (PW-2) and submitted his report (Ex. P-17),
noting as many as six lacerated wounds on the right frontal
region of the head, middle of the head, left anterior parietal
region, right parietal region (twice), and on the right elbow
joint. Both the injured were referred by this witness to CIMS,
Bilaspur for further management and expert opinion. The
doctor also examined Rajmati (PW-8) and gave his report
(Ex. P-18), wherein he noted complaint of pain in the back
of the body; however, no external mark of injury was found
on her body.
17. Dr. R. Jitpure (PW-7) conducted x-ray of Dilpa Sahu (PW-1)
vide Ex.P-21 and after examination of x-ray report, he found
no fracture on his body. The doctor has also conducted x-
ray of Kalam Sahu (PW-2) and gave his report under Ex.P-
22 and P-23 noticing fracture beneath the ulna bone of left
forearm with no callus. The doctor has admitted this
suggestion that the fracture of hand could also be caused
by falling on the ground forcefully.
18. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated oral and
documentary evidence including the medical evidence and
recorded its finding that no fatal injury has been proved by
the prosecution. From the testimony of Dr. Kamlesh Kumar
(PW-6), it transpires that although certain lacerated wounds
and swelling were found on the person of Dilpa Sahu (PW-
1) and multiple lacerated wounds on the person of Kalam
Sahu (PW-2), but the nature of these injuries was not shown
to be fatal or life-threatening. Further, the X-ray report of
Dilpa Sahu (PW-1), proved by Dr. R. Jitpure (PW-7), did not
reveal any fracture. Though the doctor (PW-7) notice
fracture on hand of Kalam Sahu (PW-2) but it was the
admission of the doctor that the fracture could also be
caused by falling on the ground forcefully. Although a
fracture of the ulna bone of the left forearm of Kalam Sahu
(Pw-2) was noticed but Kalam Sahu (PW-2), in his
deposition, attributed assault by the accused primarily on
the head and leg, and did not specifically utter about any
assault on the hand, where the fracture was found. This
discrepancy creates a reasonable doubt regarding the
prosecution version as to the manner in which the said
injury was caused and gives strong assertion to the
admission of doctor that the said injury could also be
caused by falling on the ground. So, the learned Trial Court
rightly held that the prosecution has not established the
essential ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34 (in respect of Rajmati),
and 307/34 of IPC, and the conviction of the
accused/respondents was rightly limited to the offences
under Sections 323 and 323/34 IPC, to the extent duly
proved.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mallappa and Ors.
Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544
has held in para 42 as under:-
42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on
the 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 evidence,
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. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial
pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Appellate
Court in convicting the accused/respondents under Sections
323, 323/34 of IPC and acquitting of the charge under
Sections 294, 506-2, 323/34 (causing injury to victim/injured
Rajmati), this Court finds no illegality in the judgment
impugned acquitting the accused/respondents particularly
when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of
record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring
the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the
prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully
justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based
on proper appreciation of evidence available on record.
Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the
scope is very limited and interference can only be made if
finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or
arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering
the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such
circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.
21. Accordingly, ACQA Nos.392/2018 and No.64/2019 preferred
by the victim/appellant and State/appellant herein are bereft
of any substance and, therefore, the same liable to be and
are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
pekde
