The High Court allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court found the prosecution's case unreliable due to contradictions, lack of independent witnesses, and absence of medical evidence, directing acquittal.
The judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond extended; penalty refund ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on 26.07.2023 Judgment Delivered on 09.08.2023
CRA No.900 of 2004
Ganesh Ram, aged about 51 years, S/o Tularam Verma, By Occupation Sarpanch, R/o Village Godhikala, Thana Navagarh, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh Verma, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal CAV Judgment
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 294 of IPC | R.I. for 1 month. |
| U/s 323 of IPC | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- in |
| default ofpayment of fine amount, additional |
2
| R.I. for 1 month. | |
|---|---|
| U/s 506 of IPC | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| U/s 452 of IPC | R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| U/s 3(1)(X) of | R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- in |
| Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes |
default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 |
|
| All the sentence | s were directed to run concurrently. |
3
Ram (appellant) came to the house of complainant under the influence of liquor, at that relevant time, complainant and his wife were present in the house. Appellant used to abuse the complainant in filthy language, assaulted him and demanded Rs.5,000/- by saying that if he did not give money, he will kill him. When complainant refused to give money, appellant entered into his house, beaten him and through him out from his house, on which, complainant’s wife Ratni Bai (P.W.-3)tried to intervene, then appellant dragged her to the ground and beaten her by saying that if they lodged the report of the incident to the police station, he will through them out of the village. The report of the incident was lodged by Rameshwar (P.W.-1) to the Special Police Station Durg.
4
(PW-1) complainant, Ratni Bai (PW-3) (wife of the complainant), Ballu (PW-4), Sukdeo (PW-5) (brother-in-law of the complainant). He also submits that the report was lodged after 5 months and in between there was many alteration and amendment in the report and the report is false. He submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence which relates the appellant with the incident. He argued that the complainant has not been examined by the Doctor and there is no injury on the body of the complainant and his wife. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of presumption. It is also contended that there is serious contradiction and omission in the statements of witnesses, as such, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. It is lastly contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and arbitrary, which deserves to be set aside.
5
incident. Panch Chhote Lal (the neighbor of the complainantRameshwar) has not been examined as an independent witness. The wife of the complainant Rameshwar is Ratni Bai (P.W-3). Among the other examined witnesses, Ballu (PW-4) and Sukdev (PW-5) are brothers, whose sister is Ratni Bai (PW-3). Thus, all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses being the nearest relatives of the complainant Rameshwar i.e. wife and brother in law. The place of incident is near about the complainant’s house located in villageGodhikala. The village-Pendri nearby to that village has been mentioned. Ballu (P.W-4) and Sukhdev (P.W-5) are residents of villagePendri. Their presence at the spot is not naturally reflected. They are said to have chance witness. They are also relatives of the complainant, so along with them the statement of the complainant Rameshwar and his wife Ratni Bai (PW-3) is doubtful for many reasons.
6
7
03-01-2003. The same was to be paid through Sarpanch appellant Ganeshram. But, Ganeshram did not pay the amount for the construction, then the complainant Rameshwar made a written complaint dated-24/06/2003 to the Collector, Durg as Exhibit D-1. Thereafter the payment was made by the appellant Ganesh Ram and then the alleged incident took place on 21.07.2003.
8
station.
9
interested in making statements against the appellant.
10
Chhote Lal has appeared, but he has also not been made a witness by the prosecution. In this case, the statement of the witnesses is not found reliable beyond doubt.
11
Act, 1989. The appellant is stated to be on bail. Under Section-437/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his bail-bond will be effective for another 6 months. If there is no need to appear in the senior Court, then his bail-bond will be considered free. If the amount of penalty has been deposited by the appellant, then it should be returned to him.
SD/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge
Amardeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the statements of interested witnesses are reliable beyond doubt without independent corroboration or medical evidence.
Whether the conviction is maintainable in the absence of natural witnesses and with contradictions in the prosecution case.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused resulting in acquittal.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganesh Ram
The State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
