[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
