Dismissed

Smt.Asha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2023ACQA/123/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the complainant's petition challenging the acquittal of accused persons who were convicted for assault and theft. The court held that the acquittal was sustainable as independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The complaint of assault was not well corroborated despite some medical evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.Asha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 123 of 2011

¶5

Smt. Asha, aged about 32 years, W/o Tejilal Sahu, R/o Sagarpur, Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶9

Pannalal, aged about 32 years, S/o Sarjuram Sahu, R/o Sagarpur, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶10

Sarjuram, S/o Hublal Sahu, aged about 60 years, R/o Sagarpur, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶11

Sumaria Bai, aged about 55 years, W/o Sarjuram Sahu, R/o Sagarpur, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶12

Manju Bai, W/o Pannalal Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Sagarpur, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Wasim Miyan, P.L.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Chandravanshi

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

11.09.2023

¶18

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned 1^st Upper Session Judge Manendragarh at Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal

¶19

¶20

No.62/2008, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.502/2006 has been set aside, by which the accused were convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-

¶21

S.No.	Conviction	Sentence
1.	U/s. 342 of IPC	R.I. for 6 months for each accused persons.
2.	U/s. 324/34 of IPC	R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.500 – Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 3 – 3 months for each acccusedpersons.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.10.2006 at about 12:00 pm, a goat of respondents/accused went into the field of Arhar of Complainant namely Smt. Asha, on which complainant tried to oust it. Due to this respondents/accused abused her in a filthy language and dragged her into their house and assaulted her by hands and fists, hence Complainant sustained injuries. On being report made by her, she was medically examined by the doctor, FIR was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 294, 506, 342 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

¶23

¶24

Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 294, 506, 342 and 324/34 of IPC against the respondents/accused, read and explained to them, who abjured their guilt.

¶25

To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Respondents/accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the circumstances appearing against them. They have also stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They have not examined any witness in their defence.

¶26

Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC, but convicted them under Sections 342 & 324/34 of IPC and sentenced them, as has been stated in preceding paragraph. Judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged in an appeal before the learned 1 st Upper Sessions Judge Manendragarh at Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.62/2008. After hearing both the parties, learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and acquitted the respondents/accused from charges under Section 342 & 324/34 of IPC, which has been challenged by victim/complainant in this acquittal appeal.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court in para 17 is perverse and is liable to be set aside on the ground that PW-1 duly stated against the respondents No.2 to 5 and the version of the PW-1 is also proved by the medical evidence i.e., PW-10, as 3 MLCs have been proved, so the finding of the acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court is bad in law on these two grounds.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that considering the evidence available on record, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court may be restored.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the original record of trial Court.

¶31

Smt. Asha PW-1 complainant/victim stated that respondents/accused persons dragged her into their house, looted her Magalsutra and Rs.1,500/- and also assaulted her by means of ‘Peedha and Lodha’.

¶32

Prosecution has examined various witnesses, but none of them were found to have supported the case after scrutiny of their depositions. Amarnath PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen any incident and when he reached on the spot then he saw that complainant

¶33

¶34

Smt. Asha Bai was present in the Courtyard of the house of the respondents. He has denied the suggestions that he has stated that neither he has seen any abuse of assault made by the respondents/accused nor has seen any quarrel between the parties. Kaushaliya Bai PW-3 has stated that by running over the goat for ousting it, complainant herself reached in the house of respondents/accused persons. Thus, complainant also did not get any support from her statement.

¶35

Tejilal PW-4, is the husband of the complainant Smt. Asha, but he himself has rebutted her statement made in examination in chief, as he has stated in his crossexamination that he saw the incident after coming in his house after taking bath, whereas Jaikumar PW-5 has stated that both the parties were abusing each other from the gate of their own house, thus from ocular evidence, deposition of victim/complainant does not get any support from other witnesses. Dr. O.P. Kashyap PW-10 examined complainant/victim Smt. Asha Bai and stated that all the injuries found in person of victim such as on her finger and left thigh are simple in nature. He has also admitted that such type of injury can be sustained while working in the agricultural field.

¶36

Having considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly when no support has been made

¶37

¶38

by the independent witnesses, therefore, only because of simple injuries sustained by the victim/complainant, it cannot be said that it was caused by the respondents/accused. Since version made by the complainant has not been well supported by the other witnesses, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned 1 st Upper Sessions Judge Manendragarh, at Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.).

¶39

Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- (N. K. Chandravanshi) Judge

¶41

Deepti Jha

Smt.Asha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.Asha v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puneshwar Chandra Vs Samundro

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahesh Bhagat

Shashilata Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Suraj Bhan Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramsharan Agariya

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahesh @ Chhotu