Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrika And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:12835-DB
The date The date The date when the judgment is uploaded on
when the when the the website
judgment is judgment is
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
06-02-2026 18-03-2026 - 18-03-2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 06-02-2026
Judgment delivered on : 18-03-2026
ACQA No. 19 of 2011
1. Khinuram S/o Hemram, aged about 50 years, R/o Village
Munarbod, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG) (Died and deleted as
per Hon'ble Court order dated 22.1.2026)
2. David S/o Teekaram, aged about 23 years, R/o Village
Munarbod, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG)
... Appellant
versus
1. Chandrika, S/o Rajewa Satnami, aged about 38 years,
2. Deepak S/o Sejwa Satnami, aged about 33 years,
3. Bhagchand S/o Rajwa Satnami, aged about 31 years,
4. Subechand S/o Rajwa Satnami, aged about 41 years,
2
5. Kamleshwar S/o Subechand Satnami, aged about 24 years,
6. Rameshwar S/o Subechand Satnami, aged about 26 years,
7. Chaindas @ Gullu S/o Bhuglu Satnami, aged about 46 years,
All R/o Village Munarbod, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (CG)
8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station Bemetara,
District Durg (CG)
... Respondents
ACQA No.119 of 2020
The State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg (CG)
... Appellant
versus
1. Chandrika, S/o Rajwa Sat., aged about 38 years,
2. Deepak S/o Kejwa Sat., aged about 33 years,
3. Bhagchand S/o Rajwa Sat., aged about 31 years,
4. Subechand S/o Rajwa Sat., aged about 41 years,
5. Kamleshwar S/o Subechand Sat., aged about 24 years,
6. Rameshwar S/o Subechand Sat., aged about 26 years,
7. Chaindas @ Gullu S/o Mugalu Sat., aged about 46 years,
All R/o Village Munarbod, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (CG)
... Respondents
CRA No. 205 of 2010
1. Chandrika, S/o Rajawa Satnami, aged about 38 years,
2. Deepak S/o Kejawa Satnami, aged about 33 years,
3. Bhagchand S/o Rajawa Satnami, aged about 31 years,
4. Subechand S/o Rajawa Satnami, aged about 41 years,
3
5. Kamleshwar S/o Subechand Satnami, aged about 24 years,
6. Rameshwar S/o Subechand Satnami, aged about 26 years,
7. Chaindas @ Gullu S/o Bhuglu Satnami, aged about 46 years,
All R/o Village Munarbod, Police Station Bemetara, District Durg (CG)
... Appellants
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, Distt.
Durg (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellants in ACQA No.19/2011 : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate.
For Appellant in ACQA No.119/20 & : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy.
for State in ACQA No.19/11 and Govt. Advocate.
CRA No.205/10.
For Appellants in CRA No.205/2010 & : Mr. Samir Singh and Mr. Rishi
for respondents/accused in ACQA Rahul Soni, Advocates.
Nos.19/11 and 119/20.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
CAV Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Since all these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 9.3.2010 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in ST No.27/2009, they are
being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned
judgment, learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellants of
4
the charges under Sections 302/149, 324, 326/149, 294 & 506B of
IPC, convicted them under Sections 304 Part II/149, 147, 148,
323/149, 325/149 of IPC and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304 Part II/149 of RI for 08 years, pay a fine of
Indian Penal Code. Rs.3000/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 03 months.
Under Section 325/149 of Indian RI for three years, pay a fine of
Penal Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 01 month.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.3.2009 at 15:00
hours, when Ghanshyam was standing near Dheeraji Grocery Shop at
Village Munarbod, the accused persons came there armed with club
and axe, and in furtherance of their common object, started filthily
abusing, threatening of life and assaulting David Kumar, Dinesh,
Ghanshyam Pal, Leeluram, Neelkanth @ Shyam, Teekaram,
Kheenuram & Sahinabai and caused them grievous injuries. As a result
of injuries suffered by Ghanshyam, he died on 23.3.2009 at Medical
College Hospital Raipur during treatment. On the complaint of David
Kumar, the police registered offence under Sections 326, 149, 148,
294, 323, 506B, 302 of IPC against the accused persons. The injured
were got medically examined and the dead body was sent for
postmortem after conducting inquest proceedings. Plain and
5
bloodstained soil were seized from the place of occurrence and
statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing
necessary formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148,
149, 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506B & 302 of IPC against the accused
persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order
to substantiate its case the prosecution examined its witnesses.
Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC
wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false
implication. In their defence, they examined total four witnesses.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
while acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections
302/149, 324, 326/149, 294 & 506B of IPC, convicted them under
Sections 304 Part II/149, 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149 of IPC and
sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this
judgment.
05. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the injured
Kheenuram and complainant David have filed ACQA No.19/2011 and
the State has filed ACQA No.119/2020 for enhancement of the
6
sentence to the full term prescribed under the respective sections
whereas the accused persons have filed CRA No.205/2010 challenging
their conviction and seeking acquittal from all the charges.
06. During pendency of ACQA No.19/2011, appellant Kheenuram
died and hence the acquittal appeal in respect of this appellant stood
abated and dismissed as such vide order dated 22.1.2026.
07. Learned counsel for the appellant in ACQA No.19/2011 would
submit that the learned trial Court was not justified in recording
acquittal of the accused persons from the charges under Sections
302/149, 324, 326/149, 294 and 506B of IPC in view of the specific
evidence on record substantiating the said offence. As per the
postmortem report it is clear that the the head injury suffered by the
deceased Ghanshyam was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, hence acquittal of the accused from the charge u/s 302 of
IPC is bad in law. Further looking to the manner in which assault was
made and the medical evidence which shows that there were three
surgical stitched wounds over head of the deceased, it is a clear case
of murder where the accused persons were having not only intention of
causing such bodily injuries as would result in his death but also
knowledge that such injuries are likely to cause his death. Learned trial
Court ought to have questioned the doctor (PW-1) who stated about
only one injury over head of the deceased which is contrary to the
postmortem report, as to on what basis he stated so. In the present
7
case, the accused persons were the aggressor, who came to the place
of occurrence fully armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of
their common object made fatal assault on the deceased and other
persons. Thus, in view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence
coupled with specific medical evidence, acquittal of the accused
persons from the aforesaid charges is per se illegal and the impugned
judgment deserves to be modified to the above extent.
08. Learned counsel for the State in ACQA No.119/2020 would
contend that the punishment awarded by learned trial Court to the
accused is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and they
ought to have been awarded full term of the sentence prescribed for
the respective offence as the fact of rioting that too being armed with
deadly weapons has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the circumstances of the case warrant imposition of full term
sentence prescribed for the respective offence. He submitted that the
accused chose vital parts of the bodies of injured persons for making
assault and corresponding injuries were found by the examining doctor,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, common
intention and object of the accused are writ large and they ought to
have been awarded full term of the sentence against their respective
offences. Lastly he would submit that initially the dispute started with
complainant David Kumar and he was assaulted. The other injured
persons came for his rescue but the accused mercilessly started
8
assaulting them also, without there being any previous enmity with
them. Therefore, looking to the brutal act of the accused persons, they
deserve no leniency, rather deserve maximum sentence prescribed
under the respective sections.
09. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/appellants submitted
that the learned trial Court after minute appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record has rightly acquitted the
accused/appellant from the aforesaid charges and as such, there is no
scope for interference by this Court in the finding of acquittal recorded
by learned trial Court. They would submit that even otherwise it is a
well settled principle of law when on the basis of material available on
record two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should
be adopted and that is what has been rightly done by the learned trial
Court. As regards the quantum of sentence under Sections 304 Part
II/149, 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, in fact in view of the nature and
quality of evidence adduced, the accused/appellants deserve to be
acquitted of these charges also and being so, no question of
enhancement of sentence under these sections arise.
10. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants in CRA No.205/2010
would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is contrary to the evidence on record. There is no explanation
offered by the prosecution as to why names of accused Chandrika and
Deepak were not mentioned at the time of lodging of FIR (Ex.P/22) by
9
complainant David (PW-11). Further, PW-5 Teekaram, PW-8
Neelkanth, PW-9 Leeluram, PW-10 Dinesh, PW-11 David, PW-12
Kheenuram and the deceased Ghanshyam, the injured persons, were
interrogated about the name of the assailants by the police at the time
of preparing memo for their medical examination yet none of them
named appellants Chandrika and Deepak. PW-3 Hariram, the so-called
eyewitness, has also not named these appellants as assailants. They
submit that the clubs seized from these appellants bear no bloodstain
and further, no injury was found on their body which indicate that they
were not involved in the crime in question.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that as per
prosecution case injuries caused to the deceased and others were by
hard and sharp edged weapons i.e. club and axe but as per medical
evidence, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. Though a
cut wound was found on the body of PW-12 Kheenuram and PW-13
Teekaram but in their medical examination letters they stated to have
been assaulted with club. Thus, there is glaring and blatant
incompatibility in the medical and ocular evidence regarding the
injuries sustained which makes the whole prosecution case doubtful.
This apart, the prosecution has also failed to explain the injuries found
on the body of the appellants No.3, 4, 5 & 7 which shows that the
prosecution has suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence and
has thus not presented the true version. In the given facts and
10
circumstances of the case, learned trial Court ought to have held that
in fact the injured persons were the aggressors, they assaulted
appellants No. 3 to 7 with hard and sharp weapons and caused them
fatal injuries, and in such a situation if they retaliated in their own
defence, they were fully protected by law in their action. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond
all reasonable doubt and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of all
the charges by giving them benefit of doubt. Lastly they submitted that
there was a counter case registered by the accused persons against
the complainant party, therefore, in such an eventuality, the trial Court
was required to try both the cases together but that has not been done
in the present case.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Halke and another Vs. State of MP,
1998 SCC (Cri) 953; Moti Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 9
SCC 494; State of MP Vs. Mishri Lal and others, (2003) 9 SCC 426;
Babu Ram and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 3 SCC 709; Nand
Lal and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470; and
Govind Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2731.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant and the State jointly opposing the aforesaid contention of
the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court after proper
11
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted
the appellants by the impugned judgment. However, looking to the
evidence on record and the manner in which assault was made by the
appellants thereby causing death of Ghanshyam and grievous injuries
to others, they have filed appeals challenging the acquittal of the
appellants under Sections 302/149, 324, 326/149, 294, 506B of IPC as
also seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to them under
Sections 304 Part II/149, 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 of IPC to the
full term prescribed thereunder. Therefore, the appeal filed by the
accused/appellants being devoid of any substance is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
material available on record.
14. As regards homicidal death of deceased Ghanshyam Pal, PW-11
David lodged a report (Ex.P/22) categorically stated therein that on
11.3.2009 at 15:00 hours when Ghanshyam was standing near
Dheeraji Grocery Shop at Village Munarbod, the accused persons
came there armed with club and axe, and in furtherance of their
common object, started filthily abusing, threatening of life and
assaulting David Kumar, Dinesh, Ghanshyam Pal, Leeluram,
Neelkanth @ Shyam, Teekaram, Kheenuram & Sahinabai and caused
them grievous injuries. This witness further states that at the instance
of police, they took Ghanshyam and other injured to Govt. Hospital,
12
Bemetara and looking to their serious conditions, they were referred to
Medical College Hospital Raipur where Ghanshyam died during
treatment on 13.3.2009.
15. PW-11 David & PW-3 Hariram have proved the inquest
proceedings also. PW-8 Neelkanth, PW-9 Leeluram, PW-10 Dineshpal,
PW-12 Kheenuram and PW-13 Teekaram Pal have also stated that
Ghanshaym suffered injuries during fight, he was initially taken to Govt.
Hospital, Bemetara and then referred to Raipur where during treatment
he died.
16. PW-1 Dr. AM Shrivastava states that on 11.3.2009 he medically
examined injured Ghanshyam Pal and noticed a lacerated wound of
size 2 ½ x 2 ½ x 2 ½ inch over his occipital region and opined that it
could be caused by hard and blunt object. He advised for x-ray of the
injury vide Ex.P/2.
17. PW-16 Dr. RK Singh conducted postmortem of the deceased on
13.3.2009 and noticed three surgical stitched wounds over head,
contusion over right forearm and near right eye as also depressed
fracture of frontal bone. In his opinion, death was due to cardio-
respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications. His
report is Ex.P/38. He denied the suggestion that all these injuries could
be caused due to fall on ground.
18. In view of the aforesaid uncontroverted oral, documentary and
medical evidence, it can safely be inferred that deceased Ghanshyam
13
Pal died due to the injuries suffered by him in the above incident and
as such, his death was homicidal in nature. Being so, the finding of
learned trial Court holding the death of Ghanshyam homicidal in nature
cannot be faulted with.
19. PW-3 Hariram, PW-8 Neelkanth, PW-9 Leeluram, PW-10 Dinesh
Pal, PW-11 David, PW-12 Kheenuram and PW-13 Teekaram Pal have
categorically stated that on the day of Holi at around 3 pm, the
accused/appellants armed with club, stick and crowbar came together
and started assaulting them as a result of which they suffered injuries
on various parts of the body. In cross-examination, PWs-9, 10 & 12
admitted the suggestion that in respect of the same incident, a counter
case was also registered against them.
20. On 11.3.2009 Dr. AM Shrivastava (PW-1) examined the injured
Dinesh Pal, Ghanshyam, Leeluram, Neelakth @ Shyam and Teekaram
and found injury over their head which was caused by hard and blunt
object, vide their medical reports of Ex.P/1 to P/5 respectively.
According to the doctor, injury suffered by Dinesh Pal and Neelkanth
was simple in nature and he advised for x-ray of the injury suffered by
Ghanshyam, Leeluram and Teekaram. He also examined injured
Kheenuram and found incised wound on left cheek and a bone deep
cut wound on right elbow which were simple in nature, and a crushed
wound on left little finger, for which he advised x-ray to ascertain its
nature. His report is Ex.P/6. After receipt of x-ray reports of the
14
aforesaid injured persons, he opined that fracture was found in ulna
bone of Leeluram and Neelkanth @ Shyam Kumar. There was also
fracture of metacarpal bone of right hand of Neelkanth @ Shyam
Kumar.
He also examined injured David and found abrasions on right
forearm, right shoulder, left hand and a bone deep crushed wound on
right side of head. In his opinion, all these injuries were simple in
nature. His report is Ex.P/8.
21. On the same day, he also examined the accused/appellants and
found that Kamleshwar sustained lacerated wound on occipital region
which was simple in nature vide Ex.D/1; Bhagchand sustained cut
wound on right arm, a bone deep cut wound on forehead and cut over
lips and advised for x-ray of the injuries vide Ex.D/2. He states that the
injury caused over head of Bhagchand was sufficient to cause his
death. He also examined Rameshwar and noticed a bone deep
crushed wound over occipital parietal region caused by hard and blunt
object and advised for x-ray vide Ex.D/3. He admits that this injury was
sufficient to cause his death. On examination of Subechand he found
swelling over left elbow and a crushed wound over tempo-parietal
region and advised for its x-ray vide Ex.D/4. He admits that the head
injury was sufficient to cause his death. On examination of Chaindas
he noticed a crushed wound on right side occipital region and acute
pain in right shoulder as also contusion with swelling in right wrist.
15
These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and he advised
for x-ray of these injuries to ascertain its nature vide Ex.D/5. He states
that the head injury was sufficient to cause his death.
22. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record and found that in the incident which
took place on 11.3.2009, the accused/appellants caused simple injuries
to PW-8 Neelkanth and PW-10 Dinesh Pal by hard and blunt object
and grievous injuries to Leeluram, Teekaram & Kheenuram. It is also
clear from the evidence on record that the accused/appellants being a
member of an unlawful assembly assaulted the injured persons in
furtherance of their common object and during this process, injured
Ganshyam Pal sustained grievous head injuries which led to his death
after two days during the course of treatment. Thus, conviction of the
accused/appellants u/s 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 of IPC
recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper and is hereby
affirmed.
23. So far as conviction of the accused/appellants u/s 304-II/149 of
IPC is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of PW-1 Dr. AM
Shrivastava that he found injury on head of injured Ghanshyam Pal on
11.3.2009 and advised for x-ray. As per PW-16 Dr. RK Singh he also
found injury on head of deceased Ghanshyam. Admittedly, he died two
days after the incident on 13.3.2009. As per autopsy surgeon (PW-16),
16
cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure as a result of head injury
and its complications.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Halke and another
(supra) observed in para 3 of its order as under:
“3. We have gone through the judgments of both the courts and
the relevant evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that the prosecution has not properly explained the
injuries found on the accused persons and the circumstances
show that the deceased-party could have been the aggressors.
The evidence of the injured witnesses also show that the two
appellants with sticks inflicted some blows on the deceased as
well as on the two witnesses. In this context the medical evidence
becomes very relevant. The occurrence is said to have taken
place on 15-4-1974. The injured-deceased was admitted in the
hospital and the doctor found four contusions. One of them was
on the head. Necessary treatment was given and an operation
was also performed and unfortunately the deceased died on 22-4-
1974. PWS 1 and 9 were also examined by the doctor and
similarly he found some lacerated wounds and some abrasions.
Therefore to that extent the medical evidence also corroborates
the evidence of PWs 1 and 9. Taking all circumstances into
consideration we find that there must have been a fight and it is
difficult to hold that the appellants while inflicting stick blows had
the knowledge that under the circumstances they were likely to
cause the death of the deceased when they themselves have
received the injuries at the hands of the prosecution party. Coming
to the death of the deceased as noted already the medical
evidence shows that the deceased was treated for nearly a week
and an operation was also performed and he died only thereafter.
17
No doubt the injury on the head proved to be fatal after lapse of
one week but from that alone it cannot be said that the offence
committed by the two appellants was one punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC. The injuries found on the witnesses are
also of the same nature and for the same they are convicted
under Section 325 IPC. Having regard to the fact that the
deceased died after one week the offence committed by them in
respect of the deceased would also be the same, punishable
under Section 325 IPC. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case we set aside the conviction of the
appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC and the sentence of five
years’ RI thereunder, instead we convict the appellants under
Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence each of them
to undergo nine months’ RI. The conviction under Section 325
read with Section 34 IPC is confirmed but the sentence is reduced
to nine months’ RI. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The
appeal is partly allowed.”
25. In the present case also, the incident took place on 11.3.2009
where both the parties assaulted each other and sustained similar
injuries. A counter case was also lodged against the complainant party
by the accused. PW-1 Dr. AM Shrivastava noticed head injury of
Ghanshyam which proved to be fatal and led to his death two days
after the incident on 13.3.2009 during treatment. The autopsy surgeon
(PW-16) at the time of examination found fracture of frontal bone of
size 3.5 x 1.2 cm. Leeluram and Teekaram also suffered head injury
which was grievous in nature for which the accused persons are
convicted u/s 325 of IPC. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment
18
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the manner in which the incident took
place where deceased Ghanshyam sustained head injury and died two
days after the incident during treatment, we are of the opinion that
learned trial Court was not justified in holding the accused/appellants
guilty u/s 304-II/149 of IPC and rather in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the act committed by them makes them liable for conviction
u/s 325/149 of IPC.
26. As for the sentence u/s 325/149 of IPC, in the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place way
back in the year 2009; the accused/appellants also sustained injuries in
this incident and filed a counter case against the complainant party;
they were on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal
and did not misuse the liberty; they have remained in jail for near about
a year; we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in
sending them back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met
if their substantive jail sentence u/s 325/149 of IPC is reduced to the
period already undergone by them and are directed to pay fine of
Rs.100/- with default sentence of 01 month.
27. As regards the acquittal appeals filed by the injured victim as
well as by the State; learned trial Court after close scrutiny of the
evidence came to the conclusion that there is no specific evidence to
show that the accused persons committed any obscene act to the
annoyance of others and likewise, there is no clear evidence regarding
19
criminal intimidation by the accused. In this regard, the statements of
the witnesses do not support each other and are at variance. Being so,
the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 294 and
506B of IPC. Further, learned trial Court found that there is no cogent
evidence to prove that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt
using dangerous weapons or means, such as stabbing, shooting, fire,
poison, or explosives and hence acquitted them of the charges u/s 324
& 326 of IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mallappa and Ors.
Versus State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 42 as
under:-
“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
summarized as:-
“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive–inclusive of all evidence, oral and
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a
ground of challenge;
(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;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible
20view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not
justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it
must specifically address all the reasons given by the
Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(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.”
29. In light of the aforesaid judgment, if we examine the facts and
evidence emerging in the present case, it is found that the learned trial
Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and
acquitted the accused of the charges u/s 302/149, 324, 326/149, 294
and 506B of IPC. We find no illegality or infirmity in this finding of
acquittal. Thus, the acquittal appeal filed by the injured victim being
without any merit is liable to be dismissed. As regards the acquittal
appeal filed by the State seeking enhancement of punishment, since
we have already converted the offence u/s 304-II/149 of IPC into
325/149 of IPC and for the reasons stated above, reduced the
sentence thereunder, this appeal also fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
30. In the result:
 ACQA Nos. 19/2011 and 119/2020 being without any substance
are hereby dismissed.
 CRA No.205/2010 is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the accused/appellants u/s 147, 148, 323/149 &
21325/149 of IPC, their conviction u/s 304-II/149 of IPC is altered
into Section 325/149 of IPC. Under both Sections 325/149 of
IPC, the substantive jail sentence of the accused/appellants is
reduced to the period already suffered by them. However, they
shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- each thereunder or else shall suffer
additional RI for one month. The fine amount already deposited
shall be adjusted accordingly.
The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail,
therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period
of six months from today by virtue of provisions of Section 481 of
BNSS, 2023. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this
judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned
for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Digitally signed
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2026.03.18
KHAN 13:26:10
+0530
Khan