Judgment on Board

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08/10/2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2608/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the complainant, namely, Dharmendra Kumar Baghel, before the Police Station- Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) alleging inter-alia that on 29/01/2015, when he was watching T.V. around 08:00 P.M., the respondents Narsingh, Tekram and Tikaram came and on account of the Panchayat election, they insisted him to cast his vote in favour of one Rameshwar Baghel, owing to which, altercation took place, as a result of which, he was assaulted by them with hands and fists, while abusing with filthy words in the name of mother and sister. It is alleged further that, when he shouted, Kejram, Mahesh, Kamal and one Radheshyam came for his rescue, but they were also abused by them with the said filthy words and threatened to kill. Based upon the alleged allegations, the respondents and one Tekram were charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above and during the course of trial, one of the accused, namely, Tekram Jangde has died.

3. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the complainant- Dharmendra Kumar Baghel was examined as PW-1 and from perusal of his statement, it appears that, on the said fateful day, i.e. 29/01/2015, when he was wathching T.V., the accused Narsingh came to his house in drunken condition and asked him to come out from the house and told him to cast his vote in favour of one Rameshwar Baghel, owing to which, it was stated by him that, he will cast as per his wish, which got annoyed him and started assaulting him with hands and fists while abusing with filthy words. He deposed further that, when he shouted, then other accused persons also came and started assaulting him and, after hearing his noise, Tekram and Radheshyam came for his rescue, but they were also assaulted by them. Although, it was stated by him that on the said fateful day, the respondent- Narsingh came to his house in drunken condition but, the said fact was, however, not revealed from his alleged report (Ex.P/1). Besides, though, it was stated by him in his alleged report that when he shouted, Kejram, Mahesh, Kamal and Radheshyam came for his rescue, but in his statement, he has, however, not mentioned the name of Mahesh and Kamal. There is, thus, disparity in his statement.

4. According to Radheshyam (PW-2), he was going towards tank on the said fateful day and when he heard the noise of the complainant- Dharmendra that, he was being assaulted by Sitaram and others, he then reached there and has seen that he was being assaulted by the respondents with hands and fists. He deposed further that when he intercepted the matter, he was also assaulted by them with hands and fists, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his hand.

5. Kejram Jangde (PW-3), who also came for rescue to the complainant on the said fateful day, stated that the respondents were telling him to cast his vote in favour of said Rameshwar Baghel and the complainant and he (PW-3) was also assaulted by them because he was supporting the complainant, owing to which, he sustained injuries on his neck and near the hand. More or less is the statement of Kamal Baghel (PW-4), but while exonerating, it was deposed by him that the respondents were assaulted him and the complainant with the aid of wooden stick as well, which was, however, not stated either by the complainant- Dharmendra, or by Radheshyam (PW-2) and Kejram (PW-3). Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from the testimony of Mahesh Kumar Jangde (PW-5), that one Geeta Bai and Chanda had also reached the spot for intercepting the alleged incident, but their (Geeta Bai and Chanda Bai) names were, however, not disclosed either by the complainant in his alleged report (Ex.P/1) and the statement, or even by other prosecution witnesses. That apart, they (Geeta Bai and Chanda Bai) have not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. It appears further from his (PW-5) testimony that, he was assaulted by them with hands and fists, but according to his MLC report (Ex.P/8), it appears that, he sustained injuries near his wrist with the wooden stick.

6. In view of such circumstances and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, not erred in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal.

7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.