In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court shall not interfere unless the trial court's finding is perverse or ignores material evidence. If the evidence permits two plausible views, the interpretation favoring the accused must be upheld.

(C.A.V. Judgment)

Per Rajani Dubey, J

1. Since the aforesaid acquittal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of acquittal, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The ACQA No. 392/2018 has been preferred by the appellant/victim and ACQA No.64/2019 has been preferred by appellant/State against the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.42/2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused persons under Section 323, 323/34 of IPC for causing injury to injured Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu, acquitted them of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506-2, 323/34 (for victim/injured Rajmati), 307/34 and 307/34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.2015, at Village Reevapar, Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, complainants Dilpa Sahu, Kalam Sahu, Rajmati, and Ishwari Sahu were engaged in weeding paddy in their agricultural field. At about 12:30 PM, accused persons, namely Shatrughan Sahu, Mohan Sahu, Buttu @ Sen Kumar, and Khamhan Sahu, forming an unlawful assembly armed with sticks and lathis, came to the spot and objected to the complainants that they were cultivating and raising the boundary of their (accuseds’) field. The accused persons abused the complainants in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, including threats to kill. Thereafter, they assaulted Dilpa Sahu, Kalam Sahu, and Rajmati with lathis in a manner likely to cause death. The incident was witnessed by Man Singh and Lal Singh, who were working in a nearby field. They intervened and pacified the accused persons. The injured persons were then shifted to Mungeli Hospital after informing Ambulance 108 for medical treatment. After primary treatment, considering the serious condition of Dilpa Sahu and Kalam Sahu, they were referred to CIMS, Bilaspur. An intimation was sent to Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli through hospital memo on 13.07.2015. On the basis of such information, Crime No. 316/2015 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, and investigation was undertaken.

4. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were medically examined and medical opinions were obtained. Statements of the injured persons and other witnesses were recorded. A spot map (Nazri Naksha) of the place of occurrence was prepared. Blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot. Memorandum statements of the accused persons were recorded, and the lathis allegedly used in the commission of the offence were seized. Blood-stained clothes of the injured persons were also seized and sent for medical and chemical examination, and the reports were obtained. Medical documents with regard to the treatment of the injured persons were seized.

5. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 and 325 of IPC before the competent Court followed by charge under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 323/34, 307/34 and 307/34 of IPC by the learned Trial Court.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, no witness has been examined by the accused.

7. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering