Chattisgarh High Court
Chandramani Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 July, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
CGHC010222152019 2026:CGHC:29870-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 508 of 2019
Lakhpatiya W/o Late Rampal Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Lahpatra, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lakhanpur, District
Surguja Chhattisgar., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Chandramani Gupta W/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Patratoli, Salka, Police Station - Darima, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Sanjay Gupta S/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station - Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Raju Gupta S/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station - Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Raja Gupta S/o Bitan Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station - Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh,
2
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
6 - Rajlal Gupta S/o Manbodh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station - Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
7 - Guddi @ Susheela W/o Rajesh Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Sapkara Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 2-7 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate
CRA No. 3 of 2019
1 - Chandramani Gupta W/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village- Patratoli, Salka, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjay Gupta S/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Village-
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Raju Gupta S/o Rajlal Gupta Aged About 24 Years R/o Village-
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Raja Gupta S/o Bitan Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Village-
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3
5 - Rajlal Gupta S/o Manbodh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village-
Patratoli, Salka, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
6 - Guddi @ Susheela W/o Rajesh Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village- Sabkara, Police Station- Sarajpur, District- Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Civil And Revenue District-
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment on Board
(10/07/2026)
Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
1. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment dated
14.12.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC,
Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No. 550/2011. By the
4
impugned judgment, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
03/2019 have been convicted and sentenced in the following
manner:
CONVICTION SENTENCE
u/S 294 of IPC R.I. for 3 months each and fine of Rs. 100/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
u/s 506-B of IPC R.I. for 6 months each and fine of Rs. 100/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
u/s 148 of IPC R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 300/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
u/s 149 of IPC R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 100/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
u/s 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 300/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
u/s 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 300/-
each. In default of payment of fine, further
S.I. for 10 days.
2. Criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused seeking
their acquittal from the conviction and sentence awarded whereas
the Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant for conviction
of accused persons under Section 307 of IPC and for
enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused persons.
3. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant/injured
P.W.-3/ Sonmati lodged a report in police station Lakhanpur,
5
District- Surguja on 20.11.2021 at 13:30 Hrs. stating that she
alongwith her sister/injured Lakhpatiya (PW-2) was going to
collect the death certificate of their father Late Manbodh. At that
time their sister-in-law/ Chandramani Gupta, Guddi @ Sushila,
Raju Gupta, Sanjay Gupta, cousin brother Raja Gupta and others
came alongwith lathi, stick, iron rod and filthily abused them and
threatened them for dire consequences and assaulted causing
injuries on right hand, leg and also assaulted her sister
Lakhpatiya (PW-2) on her head and tried to commit their murder.
PW-1/Tileshwari and other people in the vicinity separated them
thus somehow their lives were saved. Hence, the
appellant/accused would have killed them.
4. On the basis of the oral report, FIR Ex. P/3 was recorded by U.N.
Dewangan(PW-6). The injured Sonmati (PW-3) and Lakhpatiya
(PW-2) were sent for medical examination at Community Center
at Lakhanpur vide memo Ex. P/4 and P/5. Statements of the
witnesses were recorded, blood stains, sample soil was seized
vide Ex. P/8, spot map Ex. P/9 was prepared, memorandum
statement of the appellants was recorded vide Ex.
P/10 to Ex. P/14 and on their disclosure statement stick/ danda
was seized from their house vide Ex. P/15 to P/19.
Accused/appellants were arrested. After due investigation,
chargesheet was filed before the competent court who in turn
committed the case to the Sessions Court which was made over
to the learned Trial Court.
6
5. The appellants/accused were charged for an offence under
Section, 294, 506-B, 147, 148, 149, 307, 307/34 of IPC who
abjured their guilt and claimed trial. To prove this case, 10
prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement of the
appellants under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded in which they
claimed their innocence and pleaded false implication. Smt.
Chandramani Gupta (DW-1) was examined on their behalf. After
assessment of the evidence and the material available on record,
the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as
stated above by the impugned judgment.
6. Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in acquittal appeal submits that the learned trial court
has acted with material anomaly and illegality in passing
impugned judgment and imposing inadequate sentence and
conviction which is liable to be modified and enhanced suitably by
this Court. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the
available evidence to its proper perspective and erroneously
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants under Section
323 of the IPC. The learned trial court failed to consider that from
the evidence available on record, the appellants ought to have
been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC. The appellants had
knowledge and intention to commit the murder and has attempted
to commit murder of the injured Lakhpaitya. Thus, ingredients of
Section 307 of IPC is made out. Hence, Acquittal Appeal may be
be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and the
7
appellants may be convicted under Section 307 of IPC imposing
adequate sentence.
7. Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused submits that the conviction of the appellants is
contrary to law and facts available on record. There is no cogent
evidence available on record to hold conviction of the appellants.
The learned trial court misread the evidence available on record
to sustain conviction of the appellants. The contradiction and
omission in the evidence of the witnesses has been overlooked
by the learned trial court. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant awarded by the learned court deserves to be set-aside.
Thus, prayed that the appeal must be allowed and the
accused/appellants be acquitted. Alternatively, she submits that
there is also no previous criminal antecedents against the
accused/appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the
accused/appellants may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record.
9. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that when PW-2/Lakhpatiya
and PW-3/ Sonmati were going to collect the death certificate of
their father, on the way the accused/appellants and other persons
came there and assaulted with stick, iron rods. They were
medically examined by PW-5/ Dr. P.S. Kerketta. Before this Court
assessed the evidence in respect of criminal appeal filed by the
8
appellant, this Court will deal with the submission of Mr. Gyan
Prakash Shukla as to whether the findings of the learned trial
court is erroneous and the accused/appellants can be convicted
under Section 307 of the IPC.
10. Powers in appeal against an order of acquittal of an accused is
well settled. Ofcourse, the appellate court can re-appreciate the
evidence and arrived to an independent conclusion but the same
should not be done as a matter of routine until compelling
circumstances exists to take a different view. In the case in hand,
though appellants were charged for an offence under Section 307
alongwith other charges and the learned trial court did not find
sufficient evidence to convict them and rather acquitted them
from charge under Section 307 of IPC.
11. Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of
Bihar, (1977) 2 SCC 205 observed in paragraph 13 as under –
13. When a trial court, with full view of the witnesses,
acquits an accused after disbelieving direct
testimony, it will be essential for the High court, in
an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate
firm and weighty grounds, from the record, for
discarding the reasons of the trial court in order to be
able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the
accused. The High Court should be able to point out
in its judgment that the trial court’s reasons are
palpably and unerringly shaky and its own reasons
are demonstrably cogent. As a salutary rule of
appreciation of evidence, in an. appeal against
acquittal, it is not legally sufficient that it is just
possible for the High Court to take a contrary view
about the credibility of witnesses but it is absolutely
imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it
well-nigh impossible for the trial court to reject their
9
testimony. This is the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice.
12. In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC
461, Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held in para 9 as under –
“9. Before concluding, we would like to point out
that this Court in number of cases has held that an
Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the
judgment of acquittal by the trial court though
entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to
an independent conclusion it should not do so as a
matter of routine. In other words, if from the same
set of evidence two views are possible and if the
trial court has taken one view on the said
evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is
either perverse or such that no reasonable person
could come to that conclusion or that such a
finding of the trial court is not based on any
material on record, it should not merely because
another conclusion is possible reverse the finding
of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind
Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279),
State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju
(1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs.
Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981) (3) SCC
199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case
also we find that the trial court had taken a view
which the High Court has not held to be either
perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not
based on evidence, still on re- appreciation of the
evidence, the High Court came to a different
conclusion which on facts of this case and on the
basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court
in the above cited cases cannot be sustained.”
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and ors. v.
State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 laid down general
principles relating to powers of the appellate Court while dealing
10
with the appeal against an order of acquittal and observed in para
42 as under –
42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
Court on the evidence before it may reach its
own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as,
‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good
and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong
circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’,
‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
Court to review the evidence and to come to
its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
11
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court.
14. In light of the above principles laid down, facts of the case is
examined. Star witnesses of the prosecution is PW-2/Lakhpatiya
and PW-3/ Sonmati. They supported the case of the prosecution
and stated that when they were going to collect the death
certificate of their father on the way, the appellant/accused came
holding iron rod, pipe in their hand and assaulted on their head
and other parts of the body. The other witness PW-4/ Anita Das
and PW-9/ Sukhmen came and interfered with them and
separated them. PW-3/Sonmati was medically examined by PW-
5/ Dr. P.S. Kerketta who found the following injuries sustained by
her:
(i) An incised wound on the right armpit, measuring 3×1 inch,
extending upto the depth of the skin.
(ii) She complained of pain throughout her body.
The doctor opined that both the injuries could have been
caused by a hard and blunt object. An X-ray of the head was
advised to determine the nature of the injury.
PW-2/ Lakhpatiya was also examined by PW-5/ Dr. P.S.
Kerketta who found the following injuries sustained by her:
(i) an incised wound on the right forehead, measuing 3×1 inch; an
incised wound on the left forehead, measuring 3×2 inches; and
an injury on the left temple, measuring ½ x 1 inch.
12
(ii) A swelling injury on the left hand, measuring 2×1 inch.
(iii) Contusion and bluish discoloration on the left forearm
measuing 5 x 2 inches, on the right forearm measuring 4 x 2
inches, on the right arm measuring 4 x 3 inches, and a 3 x 2 inch
injury mark below the joint of the left leg/knee.
The doctor opined that all the above injuries could have
been caused by a hard and blunt object. An X-ray of the head
was advised to determine the nature of the injuries.
15. The doctor in his cross-examination stated that when PW-2/
Lakhpatiya and PW-3/ Sonmati were brought for medical
treatment she was conscious and her injury was found to be
superfacial, therefore, she was advised to go for an X-ray. The
record does not indicate whether PW-2 and PW-3 sustained
any fracture or internal injuries as a result of the incident. On
assessment of the evidence available on record, the trial court
the finding in paragraph 34 of its judgment after relying upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Balram Bama Patil, AIR 1983 SC 305, has held that, for an
offence under Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that the
injury caused by the accused should be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. For an offence under Section
307 of IPC, the intention of the accused is material, and the
nature of the injuries may be of considerable assistance in
determining such intention. In Harikishan Vs. Sukhveer Singh
AIR 1988 SC 2127, the Hon’ble Supreme Court heas held that
13
the intention of the accused can be inferred from the
circumstances of the case as a whole and not merely from the
consequences of the act committed by the accused. The nature
of the weapon used by the accused in committing the offence, the
manner in which it was used, the motive of the accused for
committing the offence, the force with which the blow was
inflicted by the accused, the part of the body on which the injury
was caused, and other such factors are relevant circumstances
on the basis of which the intention of the accused can be inferred.
found that to ascertain the motive and the manner in which the
assault was made on which portion of the assault was made, the
intention of accused can be determined.
16. After deep assessment of the statements of witnesses PW-2/
Lakhpatiya and PW-3/ Sonmati and also considering the
statement of PW-5/ Dr. P.S. Kerketta, the learned trial court found
that no X-ray or CT Scan documents were filed and proved
before it and also gave a categorical finding that the injuries
sustained by PW-2 would be dangerous to her life. The learned
trial court also observed, that in the natural course whether the
injuries sustained by her is sufficient to cause death. Such
opinion or evidence is not available on record and ultimately
found that PW-2 and PW-3 has not sustained any grievous injury
which could be fatal to them. After assessing the sequence of
event, the learned trial court found that under the previous enmity
or rage, the assault was made. The intention of the
14
accused/appellant was only to cause injuries and not to cause
death and found that the charge against the accused/appellant
under Section 307 or 307/34 of IPC is not made out. However,
found them guilty under Section 323/34 of IPC. The findings so
recorded by the learned trial court appears to be reasonable and
is based on proper appreciation of evidence.
17. Though learned counsel for the appellant in acquittal appeal tried
to pursuade this Court that injury may not be necessary to
ascertain the intention but this Court is not pursuaded to accept
this submission. In light of the discussion made hereinabove
which clearly indicates that the appellants/accused could not be
convicted under Section 307 of the IPC. Firstly, this court is
exercising its jurisdiction in an appeal against an acquittal.
Secondly, the material available on record clearly goes to show
that if four-five people had any intention to cause the injuries to
cause the death of PW-2 or PW-3, he must have cause grievous
injuries to them. From the material available on record clearly it is
quite vivid that there was some previous enmity amoung them
and the intention of the accused/appellants was only to cause
injuries and not death.
18. In light of the judgments quoted hereinabove and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to disturb the
findings recorded by the trial court. Thus, we do not find any merit
in the acquittal appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
19. Now, the question that arises for determination is whether the
15
conviction of the accused/appellant can sustain and whether they
are entitled for acquittal. The evidence as already been discussed
in the previous paragraphs with regard to the involvement of the
accused which is quite vivid from the statement of PW-2 and PW-
3. The injuries were duly proved by PW-5 and there is no
occasion for this Court to disbelieve the statement of PW-2 and
PW-3 which also finds corroboration by independent witness PW-
4/ Anita Das. Thus, the conviction of the appellants, as stated
above, does not appear to be perverse warranting interference by
this Court.
20. Now the question arises for consideration before this court is
whether the sentence awarded to the accused/appellants can be
reduced to the period already undergone by them?
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deo Narayan Mandal
Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in
paragraph 8 as under:
“8.This brings us to the next question in regard
to the reduction of sentence made by the High
Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence
is not a mere formality. Where the statute has
given the court a choice of sentence with
maximum and minimum limit presented then an
element of discretion is vested with the court.
This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily
or whimsically. It will have to be exercised
taking into consideration the gravity of offence,
the manner in which it is committed, the age,
the sex of the accused, in other words, the
sentence to be awarded will have to be
considered in the background of the fact of
each case and the court while doing so should
16bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The
sentence awarded should be neither
excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.”
22. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors
needs to be consider. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty
provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence,
proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the
offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any,
possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc are some of
the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of
punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and
punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor
while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should
not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal
proceedings.
23. In light of the above judgments, it is brought to the notice of this
court that the accused Sanjay Gupta has remained in jail from
22.11.2011 to 09.11.2012 (for 352 days), Raju Gupta has
remained in jail from 22.11.2011 to 08.11.2012 (for 351 days),
Raja Gupta has remained in jail from 22.11.2011 to 08.11.2012
(351 days), Rajlal Gupta has remained in jail from 01.12.2011 to
25.01.2012 (55 days), Guddi @ Sushila has remained in jail from
22.11.2011 to 22.02.2012 (92 days).
24. It is not brought to the notice that appellants were involved in any
immoral activities. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this
Court that appellant has misused liberty granted to them. It is not
17
a case that appellants had any criminal antecedent. The incident
is of the year 2011 and the criminal appeal is pending since 2019.
Taking into consideration above stated circumstances while
maintaining conviction fo the appellants we are inclined to reduce
the period of sentence already undergone by the
accused/appellants. However, the fine amount imposed is
undisturbed. The criminal appeal is partly- allowed.
25. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Surety and personal
bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall
remain operative for a period of six months in view of the
provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
26. Copy of this judgment be sent to trial court for information and
necessary action.
SD/- SD/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE JUDGE
Madhurima
