State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaindi Manjhi and Others

1

2025:CGHC:46722

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.09.13 15:55:11 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

ACQA No. 650 of 2019

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Gaindi Manjhi S/o Mangru Manjhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Kuniya, Khurpaghat, Baheradah, Thana Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Dal Say Manjhi S/o Badri Manjhi Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Kuniya, Khurpaghat, Baheradah, Thana Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Bal Say Manjhi S/o Badri Manjhi Aged About 20 Years R/o Gram Kuniya, Khurpaghat, Baheradah, Thana Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board

¶16

12.09.2025

¶17

1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Judicial

¶18

2

¶19

Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) in Criminal Case No.460/2013, whereby, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

2. The main allegation against the respondent/accused was that they have committed mischief by causing injuries to buffalo of complainant Rajeshwar Yadav.

¶21

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time buffalo shelter (Bhains Bathan) of the complainant Rajeshwar Yadav (PW2) was situated at Chherigarh, Kuniya Jangal. It is alleged that the complainant has tethered his buffalo in the Bhains Bathan and gone to his house. On the next day i.e. 02.10.2013 in the morning at about 8 am when he went to release the buffalo for grazing, he saw that one buffalo is missing from the shelter. Thereafter, when he went for searching his buffalo in nearby places, his brother Sanjay Yadav (PW-3) and Thuiya Bargah (PW-4) met him and informed that one of his buffaloes had entered into field of accused Gaindi Manjhi for grazing, on which, respondent/accused Gaindi Majhi, Dalsay and Balsay have brutally beaten his buffalo. Thereafter, on further search, the complainant and his companions Sanjay and Thuiya found that said buffalo is lying injured near water channel (Naali) and buffalo was unable to move. It is also alleged that Maar-peet with buffalo was seen by Sanjay and Thuiya. Subsequently, the complainant reported the incident at

¶22

3

¶23

Police Station Kamleshwarpur, consequent to which, FIR was lodged on 04.10.2013 vide Ex.P-1.

¶24

4. Thereafter, Crime Details Form along with sketch map of the spot was prepared by Investigating Officer Nawal Kishore (PW-7) vide Ex.P-2. Injured buffalo was medically examined on the spot by Dr. J. B. Singh (PW-1) who has prepared medical report (Ex.P-1) and found wounds on the body of buffalo caused by hard object and respiratory trouble. The photographs of injured buffalo was also taken in presence of doctor (PW-1) vide Article A-1 to A-4 which were vide property seizure memo Ex.P-3. The clubs which alleged to have been used for assaulting the buffalo were seized from accused Dalsay vide Ex.P-4 and accused Gaindi vide Ex.P-5, respectively. Panchnama has been prepared vide Ex.P-6.

¶25

Subsequently, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents viz Ex.P-1 to P-10.

¶27

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondents/accused stated that they have been falsely implicated. However, they did not adduce any defence witness.

¶28

Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 429/34 of the IPC.

¶29

4

¶30

Ms. Mukta Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though sufficient material is available on record to convict the accused for the said offence and prays to allow the appeal.

¶31

Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would support the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that same has been passed after well appreciation of evidence on record. He further submits that the FIR (Ex.P-1) itself has not been proved by the complainant (PW-2) and he has denied his signature on the FIR as well as signature made on property seizure memo vide Ex.P-3. He further submits that the incident alleged to have occurred on 02.10.2013 but the FIR has been lodged belatedly on 04.10.2013 and no sufficient explanation has been assigned for such delay. He also submits that Dr. J.B. Singh (PW-1) has deposed that he has examined the buffalo on the place of incident and in that place many stones were lying. He (PW-1) categorically admitted the fact that such injuries to buffalo could be caused by the stones. Learned counsel further submits that from the prosecution story it appears that the accused persons were trying to oust the buffalo in order to protect the crop at field, however, there is no evidence to indicate that they had any intention to cause such injuries to said buffalo. In support of his case, he places reliance in the matter of Bhagwan Rana Vs. State (1953 SCC

¶32

5

¶33

OnLine Guj55 : AIR 1953 Sau 158) decided by High Court of Saurashtra. In view of such submission, learned counsel prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶35

As regards exercise of the powers of the Appellate court in the judgment of acquittal and with regard to the scope and interference by the High Court in the such judgment, in the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law.

¶36

Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh Vs. State of Kerala [(2006)

¶37

10 SCC 617], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of

¶38

6

¶39

acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

¶40

Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another V s. State of Uttrakhand [2025 INSC 114], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of

¶41

7

¶42

acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

¶43

In order to bring home the charge under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove the elements of offence prescribed under Section 426 of the IPC. This apart, the prosecution is also required to prove that the accused has committed mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo , bull, cow or ox whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards. In the present case, the animal was buffalo which was subjected to mischief and the prosecution was required to prove any of the aforesaid mischief committed by the accused. Further, Section 425 of the IPC defines "mischief", according to which, a person is said to commit mischief with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss to a person causes the destruction of any property. The existence of the requisite intention or knowledge is, therefore, an essential ingredient to attract the offence and the accused cannot be convicted under Section 429 IPC, unless it is shown that the act of

¶44

8

¶45

killing etc. as prescribed under the said provision, was with the requisite intention or knowledge.

¶46

In the case at hand, as per prosecution story, the injured buffalo was actually entered the field of accused persons. It also appears from the prosecution story that buffalo might have entered the field of the accused for grazing the crop of accused and in order to protect their property i.e. crops from trespass, the accused had caused injuries to said animal by using club.

¶47

In similar case of Bhagwan Rana (Supra) , the applicant was convicted for the offence under Section 429 IPC for causing death of young buffalo by hitting it with stone, the High Court of Saurashtra considering the circumstances of the case has observed that the accused has a right to use reasonable force to protect his property against trespass so long as the trespass continues.

¶48

After scanning the statements of the prosecution witnesses and evidence on record, it appears that there is nothing to show that the accused persons have used force in excess of the needs. Furthermore, the writer of FIR (Ex.P-1), Naval Kishore Dubey (PW-

¶49

7), Assistant Sub Inspector deposed that on the basis of information given by complainant Rajeshwar (PW-2) he has written the said FIR and obtained his signature but the complainant himself has denied the signature on the said FIR which is a material document and also denied the signature on property seizure memo of photographs of buffalo vide Ex.P-3. In

¶50

9

¶51

the cross-examination the complainant (PW-2) has also stated that he has no knowledge as to who has captured the photographs of animal vide Article-A/1 to Article-A/4. Further, Dr. J. B. Singh (PW1) who has medically examined the buffalo on the place of the incident, in the cross-examination, has categorically admitted the fact that injuries could be caused to the buffalo on account of felling over the stones. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that when the complainant, his brother Sanjay Yadav (PW-3) and companion Thuiya Barga (PW-4) themselves have knowledge about the said incident on 02.10.2013, then why the FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged belatedly on 04.10.2013. Further, in the FIR reason for delay has been mentioned that on account of search of buffalo such delay has been occurred, however, the prosecution has failed to explain that when two of the witnesses i.e. Sanjay and Thuiya have already seen the incident on the same day itself, then why they had not informed about such incident on that day itself. In such circumstances, reason for delay shown in the FIR is not satisfactory.

¶52

It is also established that the acts done or attempted to be done in bona fide assertion of a right, however, ill-founded in law that right may be, cannot amount to the offence of mischief.

¶53

In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the facts and evidence discussed above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to make out a case for

¶54

10

¶55

interference in the judgment of acquittal and there are various infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and the view

¶56

taken by the trial Court is possible one.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶59

Ajay

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gaindi Manjhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gaindi Manjhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Kumar Varandani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sourabh Gendle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jasbir Singh Bedi Vs Suraj Nebhani

Kesari Verma Vs Devprasad Patel