2026:CGHC:6947-DB Digitally NAFR signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHAR BEOHAR Date:

2026.02.10 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

16:10:27 +0530 ACQA No. 196 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

...Appellant versus • Bhagwat Sahu, S/o Shri Netram Sahu, aged about 20 Years, R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

09.02.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Sessions Case No.38/2016, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Sections

307 & 506 Part-II (two counts) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.10.2014, at about 6:35 pm, PW-1 Lomas Sahu lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Kawardha alleging that on 10.10.2014, at about 11:00 p.m., a dispute arose between him and accused/respondent- Bhagwat Sahu, his nephew, when the accused/respondent was asked to vacate the house. It is alleged that, being aggrieved, accused/respondent abused him and his wife in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. When PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari Bai, wife of PW-1, intervened in the matter, accused/respondent allegedly assaulted her with hands and fists, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on her head, nose and face and became unconscious. PW-2 Smt. Shivkumari was initially taken to District Hospital, Kawardha, and thereafter treated at private hospitals at Kawardha and Raipur. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the offence and conducted the investigation.

3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the concerned trial Court. The accused/respondent abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of charges leveled against him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent of the aforementioned charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the testimony of the injured witness (PW-2 Shivkumari) &

PW-1 Lomas is natural, cogent, and duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record, which clearly establishes that victim sustained serious injuries in the assault committed by the accused/respondent. Despite the availability of sufficient and cogent evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with the evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are reasonable and do not call for interference in an appeal against acquittal.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala report