The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Krishna Singh Gond — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Krishna Singh Gond — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1

SUNITA GOSWAMI

Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.13 17:48:48 +0530

2025:CGHC:40818

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 199 of 2021

The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lakhanpur District Surguja (CG)

... Appellant

versus

1 - Krishna Singh Gond S/o Shri Kameshwar Singh Gond, Aged About 42 Years

2 - Bandhu Ram Gond S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Gond, Aged About 26 Years

Both are R/o Village Bagdarri, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja (CG)

---- Respondents

_____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondents :Shri Sanjay Pathak, Advocate

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment On Board

13.08.2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.01.2021, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal

2

Case No.1162/2014, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, a report was lodged by the Complainant, namely, Muneshwar Gond on 09.08.2014, before the Police Station, Lakhanpur, District Surguja, alleging inter alia, that on the said fateful day, in the morning around 7 o’clock, he, along with his sons, namely, Raju, Rajinder and wife- Jugmen Bai went to the field and, at that particular time, the respondents, along with one Vinay Shankar, came armed with sticks and while abusing in the name of mother and sister, assaulted them and threatened to kill, owing to some previous enmity. It is alleged further that, he (Muneshwar Gond) was assaulted by Krishna Singh with the aid of axe, while Rajinder with stick by Vinay Shankar (for whom charge-sheet was to be filed separately) and another son, namely, Raju was assaulted by Bandhu Ram.

3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the Complainant’s sonsRaju and Rajinder were examined as PW-2 and PW-3, respectively, but they have turned hostile without supporting the alleged allegations. According to the statement of the Complainant’s wife, namely, Smt. Jugmen (PW-8), it appears that her son- Raju was assaulted by said Bandhu Ram with the aid of stick, but the said fact was, however, not reflected in the alleged report that he was assaulted by him as such. Even otherwise, her statement is not found to be corroborated by her said sons (Raju and Rajinder).

3

4. It is to be seen further that Krishna Kumar (PW-4) and one Deo Narayan (PW-7), though, stated to be the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, but have not supported the prosecution’s alleged version. Besides, a stick was alleged to have been recovered from Bandhu Ram, vide Ex.P-2, while an axe, from Krishna Singh, vide Ex.P-3 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramprasad Painkara and one Manjeet. Ramprasad Painkara, who was examined as PW-5, but, it was deposed by him that nothing was recovered in his presence from the respondents.

5. In view thereof, no cogent and reliable evidence, has, thus, been led by the prosecution and, the trial Court after taking note of those materials, has not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to admit this appeal for hearing. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

sunita