Dismissed¶¶51

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Dinesh Mahar

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026ACQA/410/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal under S. 378(1) CrPC; POCSO Act 2012 S. 18; IPC Ss. 454, 354, 506, 341; unexplained four-day delay in lodging FIR; prior acquaintance between accused and prosecutrix; non-corroborating and contradicting witnesses (Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6); no independent witness examined; afternoon incident in an inhabited locality; prosecutrix's testimony doubted; appellate reversal of acquittal requires demonstration of illegality, perversity or error — principles of Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 relied upon; acquittal upheld as a legally plausible view; appeal dismissed. Neutral citation: 2026:CGHC:751.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the State's appeal against acquittal was dismissed. ¶¶51

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Dinesh Mahar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the State's appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 24/10/2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Dhamtari, in Special Case No. 31/2019 is liable to be set aside as illegal or perverse and the respondent/accused convicted under Sections 454, 354क, 354घ, 506, 341 IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶¶25

Court's answer

The incident of 18/07/2019 at about 3 PM was reported to police only on 22/07/2019 after consultation and deliberation; the four-day delay in lodging the first information report remained unexplained, as no explanation was elicited on behalf of the accused side.

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

The prosecutrix herself admitted in cross-examination that she had prior acquaintance with the accused and that there had been mutual talk between them; consequently the delay in reporting the incident lacked any satisfactory explanation.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

Despite the allegation of previous incidents, no earlier report was ever made; witnesses (Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5) did not support the prosecutrix's claim of having been informed, and witness (Ex.P-6) learnt of the incident long afterwards; thus even the witness statements gave no firm support to her version regarding the accused.ratio¶¶45
The prosecutrix's house was attached to other houses in a populated locality and the incident occurred at about 3 PM, when neighbours could have seen the accused entering; yet no independent witness was examined, the prosecutrix neither raised an alarm nor sought help, her testimony stood contradicted by her witnesses, and no explanation for the delayed FIR was offered — she was therefore not found to be a trustworthy witness.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (single Judge) — Acq. A. No. 410 of 2024, decided 06/01/2026. State's appeal under S. 378(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment dated 24/10/2019 of the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Dhamtari, in Special Case No. 31/2019, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges under Ss. 454, 354क, 354घ, 506, 341 IPC and S. 18, POCSO Act, 2012. Held (appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld): (i) the incident of 18/07/2019 (about 3 PM) was reported to police only on 22/07/2019 after consultation; the four-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained; (ii) the prosecutrix admitted prior acquaintance with, and earlier mutual talk with, the accused, so the delay admitted of no satisfactory explanation; (iii) though previous incidents were alleged, no earlier report existed, witnesses Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 did not corroborate her, and Ex.P-6 learnt of the matter much later; (iv) the house lay in a populated locality and the incident occurred in the afternoon, yet no independent witness was examined, she raised no alarm and sought no help, and her own witnesses contradicted her, rendering her testimony unworthy of trust; (v) testing the acquittal on the parameters in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, it was based on available material, not contrary to the evidence, and free of illegality or perversity, requiring no interference.

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

{Acq. A. No.-410 of 2024}

¶3

2026:CGHC:751

¶4

अ् ቚ त�व ि �् े

¶5

छቈ�सगढ ኍ ़ उच ् च न ् य ा �य ा �लय, त�ल�सप ि ु �र

¶6

छቈኍ�सगढ़ र�ज्या, ቛኋ�र� पु�लिलस था�ना�-अቌ኎�/ना�, लिቌ኎ल�-धमु�र�, छቈኍ�सगढ़

¶7

-----अप ु �ल�थ1/र�ज ा ् य

¶8

तिदोना�श मुहा�र तिपु��-अश�क मुहा�र, उ्቞-लगभग 26 वेष/, तिनावे�स�-र�वेनाग�़቟�, पु�लिलस था�ना�-अቌ኎�/ना�, लिቌ኎ल�-धमु�र�, छቈኍ�सगढ़

¶9

-----उቈ ኍ रव े �द ो �/अत ि भय ा

¶10

अपु�ल�था1/र�ज्या ቛኋ�र� : डॉ<क्टर स�र�न ् दो�वे�!गना, पु@नाल अलिधवे�� । अतिभया � /उቈኍरवे�दो� ቛኋ�र� : ቦኍ� स@य्यादो इशहातिदोल अल�, अलिधवे�� ।

¶11

म ु �नन ा ा �य ा नय ् ा �यम ा ु Eत�/ ቦ ि � स!ቌ ኍ ኎ य क�म ा ु �र ቌ�य ኎ ा सव े �ल, नय ् ा �य ा �ध�श

¶12

!! तन ि ा ् ቓ /य प ा ु �ठ प ु र प ु �रर� !! ि

¶13

06/01/2026

¶14

दोण्डॉ ्ቚति्ቅया� स!तिहा��, 1973 कN ध�र�-378 (1) क� �हा� दो�षमु�ति� क� तिवेरू्ሾ ्ቚस्� � इस अपु�ल मुS तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया-तिवेश�ष न्या�या�ध�श (लTतिगक अपुर�धU स� ��लकU क� स!र्ቌ्ቓ अलिधतिनायामु, 2012 क� अ!�ग/� गतिठ� न्या�या�लया, लिቌ኎स� आग� स!्ቌ�पु मुS “ तिवेश�ष अलिधतिनायामु ” कहा� गया� हा@), धमु�र�, लिቌ኎ल�-धमु�र�, छቈኍ�सगढ़ ቛኋ�र� तिवेश�ष दो�ቄኌण्डॉक ्ቚकर्ቓ ्ቅमु�!क-

¶15

Digitally signed by POMAN POMAN DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.07 14:32:47 +0530

¶16

2 / 7

¶17

{Acq. A. No.-410 of 2024}

¶18

31/2019 “ छቈኍ�सगढ़ र�ज्या तव ि र े ू ् ሾ तिदोना�श मुहा�र ” मुS पु�रिर� तिना्ቓ/या तिदोना�!क24/10/2019 कN वे@ध�� क� च�ना[�� दो� गई हा@ । लिቌ኎सक� �हा� अतिभया�ቌ኎ना क� मु�मुल� ्ቚ

¶19

मु�ति्ቓ� ना पु�� हा]ए अतिभया क� ध�र�-454, 354क, 354घ, 506, 341 भ�र��या दोण्डॉ स!तिहा�� था� तिवेश�ष अलिधतिनायामु कN ध�र�-18 क� अपुर�ध स� दो�षमु तिकया� गया� । लिቌ኎स� आग� स!्ቌ�पु मुS “ ्ቚश्ना�ध�ना तिना्ቓ/या ” स� स!��लिध� तिकया� ቌ኎� रहा� हा@ ।

¶20

अतिभया�ቌ኎ना क� मु�मुल� स!्ቌ�पु मुS इस ्ቚक�र हा@ तिक पु�ति़቟�� (अ.स�.-2) तिदोना�!क 18/07/2019 क� दो�पुहार लगभग 03:00 �ቌ኎�, ቌ኎� ቇኋ�मु-लिलमु�र� ቄኌस्था� अपुना� मुक�ना मुS अक�ल� था�, �� अतिभया तिदोना�श मुहा�र, पु�ति़቟�� क� पु़቟�स� मुEलच!दो मुहा�र कN ��़቟� कN ओर स� पु�ति़቟�� क� घर कN छ� पुर चढ़कर स�ढ़� क� मु�ध्यामु स� उसक� घर क� अ!दोर पुरछ� मुS ्ቚ वे�श तिकया� । अतिभया ना� पु�ति़቟�� स� कहा� तिक वेहा उसस� प्या�र कर�� हा@ और वेहा उसस� �� क्याU नाहाh कर�� हा@; यातिदो वेहा �� नाहाh कर�ग� �� वेहा उस� ቌ኎�ना स� मु�र दो�ग� । इसक� पुश्च�� अतिभया � ना� च�कE तिनाक�लकर पु�ति़቟�� क� धमुकN दो� । इस पुर पु�ति़቟�� ना� याहा कहा�� हा]ए तिक वेहा उसस� �� नाहाh करना� च�हा��, ቌ኎�र-ቌ኎�र स� र�� एवे! तिचቤኋ�� हा]ए कमुर� क� अ!दोर ቌ኎�कर कमुर� क� दोरवे�ቌ኎� अ!दोर स� �!दो कर लिलया� । लगभग 10 तिमुनाट पुश्च�� हार तिनाकलकर दो�खना� पुर पु�ति़቟�� ना� पु�या� तिक अतिभया तिदोना�श उसक� घर क� मु�ख्या दोरवे�ቌ኎� ख�लकर वेहा�! स� ቌ኎� च�क� था� । श�मु लगभग 05:00 �ቌ኎� ቌ኎� पु�ति़቟�� क� मु��-तिपु�� घर आए, �� पु�ति़቟�� ना� उन्हाS घटना� कN ቌ኎�नाक�र� दो� । �त्पुश्च�� पु�ति़቟�� ቛኋ�र� ्ቚदोश/ पु�-1 क� रूपु मुS लिललिख� तिशक�या� ्ቚस्� � तिकए ቌ኎�ना� पुर पु�लिलस था�ना� अቌ኎�/ना�, लिቌ኎ल�-धमु�र� ቛኋ�र� तिदोना�!क 22/07/2019 क� ्ቚथामु सEचना� पु्ቔ ्ቚदोश/ पु�-2 क�यामु तिकया� गया� । तिवेवे�चना� क� दो[र�ना घटना�स्थाल क� नाक्श� �@या�र कर�या� गया� �था� पुटवे�र� स� भ� नाक्श� �नावे�या� गया� । अतिभया स� सब्ቌ኎� क�टना� क� एक च�कE ቌ኎ब्� तिकया� गया� । पु�ति़቟�� कN

¶21

3 / 7

¶22

{Acq. A. No.-410 of 2024}

¶23

आया� पुर�्ቌ्ቓ क� स!�!ध मुS उसक� तिवे्ቕ�लया स� ्ቚ�्቎ अ!कसEच� क� आतिट/कल-ए/1 क� रूपु मुS ቌ኎ब्� तिकया� गया� । स�ति्ቌयाU क� �या�ना दोቌ኎/ तिकए गए �था� स!पुE्ቓ/ तिवेवे�चना� उपुर�!� अतिभया�गपु्ቔ ्ቚस्� � तिकया� गया� ।

¶24

तिवेच�र्ቓ क� दो[र�ना आर�पु क� ्ቚमु�्ቓना हा � � अतिभया�ቌ኎ना कN ओर स� अपुना� पु्ቌ क� समुथा/ना मुS क�ल 10 स�ति्ቌयाU क� पुर�्ቌ्ቓ कर�या� गया� �था� 09 दोस्��वे�ቌ኎ ्ቚदोतिश/� कर�ए गए । ध�र� 313 दोण्डॉ ्ቚति्ቅया� स!तिहा�� क� �हा� अतिभया ना� अपुना� तिवेरु्ቍ आए स�ति्ቌयाU क� कथानाU स� इ!क�र कर�� हा]ए स्वेया! क� तिनादोsष हा�ना� ��या� । �त्पुश्च�� उभयापु्ቌ क� स�नाकर तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया ቛኋ�र� “ ्ቚश्ना�ध�ना तिना्ቓ/या ” पु�रिर� कर�� हा]ए अतिभया क� दो�षमु तिकया� गया�, लिቌ኎स दो�षमु�ति� क� इस अपु�ल मुS च�ना[�� दो� गई हा@ ।

¶25

अपु�ल�था1/र�ज्या क� तिवेቛኋ�ना अलिधवे�� क� �क/ हा@ तिक पु�ति़቟�� (अ.स�.-2) ना� अपुना� न्या�या�लया�ना स�ቌኚया मुS अतिभया�ቌ኎ना मु�मुल� कN पुE्ቓ/�u पु�तिv कN हा@, लिቌ኎सक� समुथा/ना उसकN तिमु्ቔ (अ.स�.-6) क� कथानाU स� भ� हा�� हा@ । तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया ቛኋ�र� पु�ति़቟�� क� अवेयास्क मु�ना� गया� हा@, तिक! �� उसक� स�ቌኚया पुर तिवेश्वे�स ना कर ्ቔ�तिटपुE्ቓ/ तिनाष्कष/ तिनाक�ल� गया� हा@, ቌ኎� तिवेलिध कN दृतिv मुS ቄኌस्थार रख� ቌ኎�ना� या�ग्या नाहाh हा@ । अतिभया � क� तिवेरु्ቍ अतिभया�ቌ኎ना क� मु�मुल� पुE्ቓ/�u ्ቚमु�ति्ቓ� रहा� हा@ । अ�u ्ቚश्ना�ध�ना दो�षमु�ति� क� तिना्ቓ/या अपु�स्� कर�� हा]ए अपु�ल स्वे�क�र कN ቌ኎�कर अतिभया � क� दो�षलिस्ቍ कर दोቄኌण्डॉ� तिकया� ቌ኎�ए ।

¶26

अतिभया � /उቈኍरवे�दो� क� तिवेቛኋ�ना अलिधवे�� ቛኋ�र� तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया क� “ ्ቚश्ना�ध�ना तिना्ቓ/या ” क� समुथा/ना कर�� हा]ए �क/ तिदोया� गया� हा@ तिक तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया ቛኋ�र� ቌ኎� दो�षमु�ति� क� तिनाष्कष/ अ!तिक� गया� हा@, वेहा पुE्ቓ/�u उतिच� हा@ । अपु�ल�था1/र�ज्या पु्ቌ ቛኋ�र� अपु�ल मुS उठ�ए गए �क/ स्वे�क�र या�ग्या नाहाh हाT । अ�u अपु�ल ख�रिरቌ኎ कN ቌ኎�ए ।

¶27

4 / 7

¶28

{Acq. A. No.-410 of 2024}

¶29

उभयापु्ቌ क� �क/ ቦኍवे्ቓ तिकया� गया� और तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया क� अतिभल�ख क� सEቌኚमु��पुEवे/क पुरिरश�लना तिकया� गया� ।

¶30

न्या�यादृv�!� Mallappa and other v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 मुS मु�नाना�या उच्च�मु न्या�या�लया ቛኋ�र� दो�षमु�ति� क� तिवेरू्ሾ ्ቚस्� � अपु�ल क� तिनार�कर्ቓ हा � � क�छ न्या�तियाक लिस्ሾ�!� ्ቚति�पु�तिदो� तिकए गए हाT ቌ኎� कቄኌण्डॉक�-42 मुS तिनाम्ना�ना�स�र हा@u-

¶31

“42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as:

¶32

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

¶33

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶34

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

¶35

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

¶36

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the

¶37

5 / 7

¶38

reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶39

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court. ”

¶40

तिवेच�र्ቓ�या मु�मुल� क� ्ቚस्� � स!पुE्ቓ/ स�ቌኚया क� पुरिरश�लना स� याहा ቄኌस्थाति� स्पुv हा�� हा@ तिक कलिथा� घटना� तिदोना�!क 18/07/2019 क� दो�पुहार लगभग 03:00 �ቌ኎�, अथा�/� तिदोना क� समुया कN ��ई गई हा@, तिक! �� उ� घटना� क� स!�!ध मुS सल�हा-मुशतिवेर� क� पुश्च�� ्ቚथामु सEचना� रिरपु�ट/ च�र तिदोवेस पुश्च��{ तिदोना�!क 22/07/2019 क� दोቌ኎/ कर�या� गई हा@ । याहा स्वे�क| � �थ्या हा@ तिक पु�ति़቟�� ना� घटना� कN ቌ኎�नाक�र� उस� तिदोना अपुना� मु��-तिपु�� क� दो� दो� था� । इसक� ��वेቌ኎Eदो, ्ቚथामु सEचना� रिरपु�ट/ दोቌ኎/ कर�ना� मुS च�र तिदोवेस क� तिवेल!� क्याU हा]आ, इसक� समु�ध�ना्ቚदो स्पुv�कर्ቓ अतिभया�ቌ኎ना ቛኋ�र� ्ቚस्� � नाहाh तिकया� गया� हा@ ।

¶41

दोEसर� मुहात्वेपुE्ቓ/ �थ्या याहा हा@ तिक पु�ति़቟�� क� अना�स�र अतिभया पुEवे/ मुS भ� उसस� छ�़቟छ�़቟ कर�� रहा� हा@, तिक! �� स्वेया! पु�ति़቟�� ना� अपुना� स�ቌኚया मुS याहा स्वे�क�र तिकया� हा@ तिक अतिभया स� उसक� पुEवे/ पुरिरचया था� �था� उनाक� मुध्या आपुस� ��च�� हा�� रहा�� था� । इसक� ��वेቌ኎Eदो, घटना� कN रिरपु�ट/ दोቌ኎/ कर�ना� मुS च�र तिदोवेस क� तिवेल!� क्याU हा]आ, इसक� समु�ध�ना्ቚदो अथावे� स!��षቌ኎नाक स्पुv�कर्ቓ अतिभया�ቌ኎ना ቛኋ�र� ्ቚस्� � नाहाh हा@ ।

¶42

पु�ति़቟�� (अ.स�.-2) क� अना�स�र अतिभया पुEवे/ मुS भ� उस� तिवे्ቕ�लया आ��-ቌ኎�� समुया छ�़቟छ�़቟ कर�� था�, तिक! �� इस स!�!ध मुS पु�ति़቟�� क� पुरिरቌ኎नाU ቛኋ�र� पुEवे/ मुS रिरपु�ट/ दोቌ኎/ कर�ए ቌ኎�ना� कN ቌ኎� �� कहा� गई हा@, उस पुर वे� स्वेया! ቄኌस्थार नाहाh रहा� हाT �था� अतिभल�ख पुर ऐस� तिकस� भ� पुEवे/ रिरपु�ट/ क� ्ቚस्� � तिकया� ቌ኎�ना� नाहाh पु�या� गया� हा@ । इसक� अति�रिर�, घटना� कN ቌ኎�नाक�र� पु�ति़቟�� ቛኋ�र� अपुना� तिमु्ቔU क� तिदोए ቌ኎�ना� क� स!�!ध मुS तिमु्ቔ (अ.स�.-4) एवे!

¶43

6 / 7

¶44

{Acq. A. No.-410 of 2024}

¶45

तिमु्ቔ (अ.स�.-5) ना� उसक� कथानाU क� समुथा/ना नाहाh तिकया� हा@, ቌ኎�तिक तिमु्ቔ (अ.स�.-6) ना� घटना� कN ቌ኎�नाक�र� क�फीN तिवेल!� स� ्ቚ�्቎ हा�ना� ��या� हा@ । ቌ኎� ्ቚथामु सEचना� रिरपु�ट/ तिवेल!� स� दोቌ኎/ कN गई हा@, �� तिमु्ቔ स�्ቌ� क� कथाना स� भ� पु�ति़቟�� कN तिवेश्वेसना�या�� क� स!�!ध मुS अतिभया�ቌ኎ना क� क�ई ठ�स समुथा/ना ्ቚ�्቎ नाहाh हा�� ।

¶46

याहा एक मुहात्वेपुE्ቓ/ �थ्या हा@ तिक तिवेवे�चक क� रूपु मुS सहा�याक उपुतिनार�्ቌक ቌ኎�.आर. स�हा€ (अ.स�.-10) ना� अपुना� ्ቚति�पुर�्ቌ्ቓ मुS याहा स्वे�क�र तिकया� हा@ तिक घटना�स्थाल एक रिरहा�याश� ्ቌ �्ቔ हा@, ቌ኎हा�! अना�क ल�ग तिनावे�स कर�� हाT । पु�ति़቟�� क� कथानाU स� भ� याहा पुरिरलति्ቌ� हा�� हा@ तिक उसक� घर स� लग� हा]ए �था� आसपु�स अन्या व्याति�याU क� मुक�ना ቄኌस्था� हाT । पु�ति़቟�� ना� याहा भ� कहा� हा@ तिक घटना� क� समुया वेहा तिचቤኋ�ई था� । अतिभया�ቌ኎ना क� अना�स�र अतिभया � मुEलच!दो मुहा�र कN ��़቟� कN ओर स� पु�ति़቟�� क� घर कN छ� पुर चढ़कर स�ढ़� क� मु�ध्यामु स� उसक� घर क� अ!दोर पुरछ� मुS ्ቚवे�श तिकया� । कलिथा� घटना� दो�पुहार लगभग 03:00 �ቌ኎�, अथा�/� तिदोना क� समुया कN ��ई गई हा@ । ऐस� ቄኌस्थाति� मुS याहा स्वे�भ�तिवेक हा@ तिक आसपु�स क� ल�ग अतिभया क� आ��-ቌ኎�� दो�ख सक�� था� । इसक� ��वेቌ኎Eदो, इस स!�!ध मुS पु़቟�स क� तिकस� भ� स्वे�!्ቔ स�्ቌ� क� पुर�्ቌ्ቓ अतिभया�ቌ኎ना ቛኋ�र� नाहाh तिकया� गया� हा@ । इसक� अति�रिर�, याहा भ� ्ቚमु�ति्ቓ� नाहाh हा� पु�या� हा@ तिक घटना� क� समुया पु�ति़቟�� ቛኋ�र� वे�स्�वे मुS तिचቤኋ�ना� अथावे� सहा�या�� मु�!गना� कN �� तिकस� ना� स�ना� हा� । पु�ति़቟�� कN तिमु्ቔU क� कथानाU स� भ� उसकN तिवेश्वेसना�या�� स!दो�हा�स्पुदो हा�� हा@ । स�था हा�, ्ቚथामु सEचना� पु्ቔ दोቌ኎/ कर�ना� मुS हा]ए तिवेल!� क� स!�!ध मुS क�ई समु�ध�ना्ቚदो अथावे� स!��षቌ኎नाक स्पुv�कर्ቓ भ� ्ቚस्� � नाहाh तिकया� गया� हा@ । ऐस� ቄኌस्थाति� मुS पु�ति़቟�� स!दो�हा स� पुर� तिवेश्वेसना�या नाहाh पु�या� ቌ኎�� ।

¶47

उपुर�� न्या�यादृv�!� क� ्ቚक�श मुS स�ቌኚया तिवेवे�चना� क� फीलस्वेरूपु याहा न्या�या�लया पु�� हा@ तिक तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया ቛኋ�र� ቌ኎� दो�षमु�ति� क� तिनाष्कष/ अ!तिक� तिकया� गया� हा@ वेहा अतिभल�ख मुS

¶48

7 / 7

¶49

उपुलब्ध �थ्या और स�ቌኚया क� तिवेपुर�� या� तिवेर�ध�भ�स� नाहाh हा@ �था� ्ቚश्ना�ध�ना दो�षमु�ति� क� तिना्ቓ/या मुS क�ई अवे@ध�� या� अश�्ሾ�� पुरिरलति्ቌ� नाहाh हा�� । इसलिलए उसमुS हास्�्ቌ�पु कN आवेश्याक�� नाहाh पु�या� ቌ኎�� ।

¶50

अ�u दो�षमु�ति� क� तिवेरू्ሾ ्ቚस्� � याहा अपु�ल स्वे�क�र या�ग्या ना हा�ना� स� ख�ररቌ ि ኎ कN ቌ኎�� हा@ ।

¶51

तिना्ቓ/या कN ्ቚति�लिलतिपु क� स�था तिवेच�र्ቓ न्या�या�लया क� अतिभल�ख श�्ቈ��पुEवे/क वे�पुस ्ቚ�तिष� हा� ।

¶52

सहा�/(स!ቌ ኎ य क�म ा ु �र ቌ�य ኎ सव ा े �ल) नय ् ा �य ा �ध�श

¶53

पु�मुना

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Dinesh Mahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Dinesh Mahar

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

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maa Bhagwati Tractors, Vs Raghunath Singh Aghariya

Usha Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ku. Maneshwari Yadav

Suresh Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Gupta @ Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh