Dismissed¶43

State of Chhattisgarh v. Chandrika Prasad Singh @ Chandi Ram

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2025ACQA/578/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 578 of 2019; State appeal against acquittal dismissed (08/08/2025, Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.); Section 378(1) CrPC; Sections 456, 294, 506, 323 IPC; legal insanity; Section 84 IPC; new Section 22 Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023; evidentiary value of defence witnesses; tethering with iron chain; treatment by local quack; absence of motive; benefit of doubt; prosecution failure to investigate insanity; Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ambikapur, Criminal Case No.1974/2011; Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja; club assault on uncle and granddaughter; acquittal upheld; no interference with possible view.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent/accused stands, the appeal having failed and been dismissed. ¶43

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Chandrika Prasad Singh @ Chandi Ram — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent/accused stands, the appeal having failed and been dismissed.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for interference in this appeal preferred by the State. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The view taken by the trial Court is a possible one and no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Witnesses examined from the defence side have evidentiary value and the Court is bound to appreciate and give proper weightage to their statements.

¶29

Key takeaways

As deposed by (DW-1) Ram Singh, at the time of incident (2010-11) the respondent/accused was not conscious about his dress and his family members used to tether him with iron chain considering his condition as insane; (DW-2) Ramgadiya, sister of the accused, gave similar testimony.ratio¶30
Prior to the incident, looking to the mental condition of the respondent/accused, the family members had taken precautions, tethered him with iron chain and he was treated by a local quack; moreover, there is complete absence of motive to assault PW-1 and PW-2.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal against acquittal (ACQA) - State appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC against acquittal under Sections 456, 294, 506 & 323 IPC for abusing, threatening and assaulting the complainant (uncle, PW-1) and his granddaughter (PW-2) with a club - dismissed by Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J., High Court of Chhattisgarh. Defence witnesses (DW-1 Ram Singh and DW-2 Ramgadiya, sister of the accused) deposed to the accused's pre-existing insanity: before and at the time of the incident (2010-11) he was unconscious of his dress and his family tethered him with an iron chain and had him treated by a local quack; there was complete absence of motive to attack close relatives, and PW-2 admitted she did not know why the accused assaulted them. Holding that defence-side witnesses carry evidentiary value, the Court found a strong presumption of legal insanity attracting Section 84 IPC (new Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023), faulted the prosecution for not investigating the insanity aspect, held the trial Court's view to be a possible one, and declined to interfere with the acquittal. No further order was passed in view of the submission that the accused's mental condition had since improved.

2025:CGHC:39912

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 578 of 2019

¶6

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Staion Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chandrika Prasad Singh @ Chandi Ram S/o Geda Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Losangi, Police Stastion Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

08/08/2025 :

¶15

The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the CrPC against the judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ambikapur District Surguja in Criminal Case No.1974/2011 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 456, 294, 506 & 323 of the IPC.

¶16

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2025.08.11 11:38:43 +0530

¶17

¶18

Case of the prosecution is that Dalsai (PW-1) has lodged an FIR with the Police Station Lakhanpur on 19.9.2011 at about 10 pm stating that his nephew i.e. the respondent/accused came to their house at about 7 pm and informed him that his family members are trying to assault him and requested the complainant to advise them. The complainant sent his son i.e. (PW-5) Kishun Singh along with the respondent/accused. Again, the respondent/ accused came to his house at about 10 pm and in front of his house abused him in filthy language; took the complainant, a 75 years old person, in the room of his son i.e. (PW-5) Kishun Singh, switched off the light, threatened to kill and and assaulted him by means of club on his head. When the complainant raised hue and cry, other members i.e. Yamleshwar (not examined) and granddaughter Kavita (PW-2) came to intervene, however, the respondent/accused also assaulted Kavita (PW-2) on her head by club and also caused injury to Yamleshwar by the said weapon, and thereafter closed the room of (PW-5) Kishun Singh. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Shivnandan @ Shiva (PW-6), Dinesh (not examined) and Vijay (PW-3).

¶19

During investigation, the club was seized from the appellant on 4^th October, 2011. The injured persons namely, Dalsai (PW-1), Kavita (PW-2) and Yamleshwar (not examined) were medically examined by Dr. Prem Singh (PW-4) vide Ex.-P/3 to P/5 and found simple injuries on the bodies of the said victims.

¶20

¶21

Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/9. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In order to prove the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/11). However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the respondent/accused has taken a specific plea that at the time of incident his mental condition was not normal and he was falsely implicated. In defence, the respondent/accused has examined (DW-1) Ram Singh and (DW-2) Ramgadiya, sister of the respondent/accused. They have also deposed that prior to the incident and even at the time of incident, the appellant was suffering from mental illness. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. Hence this Appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and, therefore, the Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment. He would submit that there are clear evidence available on record to show that at the time of incident the respondent/accused was suffering from legal insanity. The defence witnesses namely, (DW-1) Ram Singh and

¶25

¶26

(DW-2) Ramgadiya have clearly stated that the respondent/ accused has previous history of insanity, however, the prosecution has failed to investigate on such aspect. He would further submit that there was no motive on the part of the respondent/accused to attack his close relatives i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 and the said fact has been admitted by those witnesses and as such, the same also corroborated the fact that the act was not driven by rational intent but rather on account of disturbing mental condition. In such circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the respondent/ accused. Even otherwise, no independent witness has been examined and there are contradictions in the statements of (PW1) Dalsai and (PW-2) Kavita. (PW-1) Dalsai has stated that on the date of the incident, the respondent/accused has taken food in his house, whereas his granddaughter (PW-2) has stated that the respondent/accused has not taken any meal and he has doubted that some poison has been mixed in his food. The witness who has been cited as eyewitness has also not supported the case of the prosecution at all. He would further submit that in the meanwhile, mental condition of the respondent/accused improved and he was able to take his defence and, therefore, he has contested the matter before the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. The impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference.

¶27

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

It is well established that even the witnesses who have been examined from the defence side have some evidentiary value and the Court is bound to appreciate and give proper weightage to the statements of witnesses examined from the defence side.

¶30

(DW-1) Ram Singh has clearly stated that at the time of incident, in the year 2010-11, the respondent/accused was not so conscious about his dress and the family members used to tether him with iron chain considering his condition as insane. Similar is the statement of sister of the respondent/accused namely, (DW-2) Ramgadiya. Even as per the statement of (PW-1) Dalsai, on the date of the incident, the respondent/accused has reached to the house of this witness only to seek some help by making allegation against the inmates of his house that they are trying to assault him and requested the complainant to accompany him to his house and to advise his relatives. The said fact has been recorded in the FIR (Ex.-P/1).

¶31

The complainant is the uncle of the respondent/accused. In cross-examination he has stated that he is not aware of the fact that prior to the incident, his family members took the respondent/ accused for treatment of his mental condition to Dharamjaigarh and Udaipur and also tethered the respondent/accused with iron chain. The complainant has further stated that the respondent/accused came to his house at about 7 pm prior to the

¶32

¶33

incident and took meal and he had sent his son Kishun Singh (PW-5) along with the respondent/accused. Thereafter again the respondent/accused reached their house and committed the aforesaid offence.

¶34

Kishun Singh (PW-5) has not stated that prior to the incident the respondent/accused came to their house and his father sent him with the accused to take him safely to his house, as stated by his father (PW-1)

¶35

(PW-2) Kavita, granddaughter of the complainant, in crossexamination, has stated that the respondent/accused has not accepted the food and raised doubt that they had mixed poison in the food. She clearly admits that she has no knowledge as to why the respondent/accused has assaulted her grandfather as also to her. After the incident, the respondent/accused his closed himself in the room of the complainant.

¶36

(PW-4) Dr. Prem Singh has proved the simple injuries on the bodies of PW-1 and PW-2 vide his report Ex.-P/3 & P/4 respectively. The MLC report of one of the injured persons namely, Yamleshwar (not examined) has also been proved by the said doctor vide Ex.-P/5.

¶37

From the material available on record, it is explicit that prior to the incident, looking to the mental condition of the respondent/ accused, the family members had taken some precautions, tethered him with iron chain and he was also treated by a local quack. Moreover, there is complete absence of motive to assault

¶38

¶39

PW-1 & PW-2. Even immediately after few hours of the incident, as per the version of (PW-1) Dalsai, the respondent/accused reposed his family’s faith and regard to his uncle. PW-1 has stated that he has extended some help but he has not made any enquiry whether apprehension of the respondent/accused was genuine or not and whether the family members were actually trying to assault him or there was any delusion to the respondent/accused on account of mental disturbance.

¶40

From the above evidence, a strong presumption of legal insanity warranting protection under Section 84 of the IPC (new Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023) can be drawn. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has not investigated on this aspect.

¶41

A submission has been made at the Bar that now the mental condition of the respondent/accused has been improved. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order.

¶42

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

¶43

In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶45

Judge

¶46

Barve

State of Chhattisgarh v. Chandrika Prasad Singh @ Chandi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Chandrika Prasad Singh @ Chandi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahindra Tractors Agency Vs Sukhraj Singh Sandilya

Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Shweta Das

Rajendra Prashad Vs Kirtan Gond

Amrit Lal Hirwani Vs Chandrakant Sahu @ Lalla

Jogendra Mandal Vs Arun Paik

Niranjan Mistri Vs Arun Paik