STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs BINDHESHWAR RATHIYA

1


CGHC010134002024 2026:CGHC:46624-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1134 of 2024
Order Reserved On : 07/10/2026
Order Passed On : 04/11/2026
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station
Shyang, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
Bindheshwar Rathiya S/o Dhanshay Rathiya Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Vijay Nagar, P.S. Kapu, District Raigarh, Now Village Gervani
(Chandra Dhava) P.S. Pujipathara, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional AG.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas &
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, JJ

C A V Order
Per Sudhir Kumar, J.
1. The State/appellant has preferred this petition for grant of Leave
to Appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 6.3.2023
st
passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba
st
in ST No.63/2020 whereby the learned 1 Additional Sessions
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.11.05
12:21:46
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

2
Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under
Sections 307 and 450 of the IPC by extending benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant Dharam Singh
Rathiya has lodged an FIR (Ex.-P/1) on 29.7.2020 with the
concerned Police Station stating that he got his daughter married
with the accused in the year 2020. For about 3 months his
daughter had stayed in her in-laws’ house. It is alleged that after
consuming liquor the accused used to commit Marpeet with his
daughter and also used to harass her. In the year 2020, the
accused and his daughter visited his house. After staying there
for some days, the accused returned to his village alone. His
daughter was staying with him and the accused used to visit every
now and then. When he asked the accused as to why he has
dropped his wife (daughter of the complainant) in his house and
after calling 2-4 elderly persons, he should resolve the dispute, on
which the accused left the place and went to his house and
thereafter the accused never returned to the house of the
complainant. On the fateful day at about 00.20 hours the accused
barged into the house of the complainant and while saying that
they are not sending his wife (i.e. daughter of the complainant)
with him, the accused picked up a Tangia and while saying that he
would kill both father-in-law and mother-in-law, assaulted the wife
of the complainant on her head, as a result of which wife of the
complainant started bleeding. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

3
3. On the basis of aforesaid report, a case was registered against
the accused and investigation was conducted. During the course
of investigation, the injured was medically examined. Statements
of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested on
5.9.2020. After completion of investigation and finding sufficient
evidence against the accused, the charge-sheet was submitted
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba on
19.11.2020. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of
the Sessions Judge, Korba. The charges under Sections 307 and
450 of the IPC were framed against the accused and read over
and explained to him. The accused denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
material available on record, the trial Court has acquitted the
respondent/accused as mentioned above.
5. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant/State that the
conduct of the respondent/accused proves ill- intention on his part
and, therefore, he ought to have been convicted by the trial Court.
However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused on
the ground that the victim and eyewitness have not identified in
their cross examination. The trial Court has failed to appreciate
the whole version of PW/1 and PW/2. As such, their version is not
sustainable. It was also not considered that prompt FIR has been
lodged and (PW/7) Dr. Manmit Thabiet, who examined the victim
(PW/2), has categorically opined that the injured has suffered

4
injuries on head and thereafter (PW/8) Dr. Sachin T.R submitted
medical report Ex.P/23. Thus, it is categorically established that
the victim has sustained serious injuries and minor discrepancies
regarding identification cannot be a ground for acquittal. Though
the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much
limited but the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-
appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position
of law that if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and
perverse, the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same
and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused
appropriately.
6. In the present case, all the witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution and established the case beyond reasonable doubt,
however, in spite of that, the trial Court has acquitted the
respondent/accused of the said charges. Moreover, the injury
inflicted by the accused was not simple in nature and the same
was grievous injury, which was caused with intention to kill her
and therefore, the offence under those Sections is made out.
Hence, the present Appeal may be allowed, the impugned
judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the respondent/
accused may be convicted accordingly.
7.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and
perused the record.

5
8. (PW-2) Jagmoti is the victim in the present case. In her
examination-in-chief, she has stated that on the date of the
incident, at about 12.20 hours in the night, the accused entered
her house holding Tanga in his hand. At that time, she was lying
on the bed but was conscious and a lamp was burning in the room
and in the light of the lamp, she saw the accused. Before she
could say anything, the accused assaulted on the left side of her
head, as a result of which, she fell unconscious. When she
regained consciousness, her daughter, husband and people of the
vicinity were present. After the incident, she was taken to
Dharamjaigarh Hospital for treatment from where she was
referred to the District Hospital Korba. In cross-examination, this
witness has admitted that on the date of the incident, after taking
their meals, she and her family members were sleeping. It was
also admitted that on the date of the incident, after turning off the
lights, she was sleeping. During cross-examination, this injured
witness has admitted that she could not see as to who had
inflicted the blow at the time of the incident. Accordingly, her
testimony stands contradicted in cross-examination on the
material aspect of having witnessed the occurrence. The
testimony of this injured witness stands discredited in cross-
examination.
9. (PW-1) Dharam Singh is the husband of the victim (PW-2)
Jagmoti. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on the
date of the incident at about 12.20 hours in the night, the accused

6
entered his house from the roof and assaulted his wife with Tanga
on her head, as a result of which she suffered grievous injuries
and blood started oozing out of her head. He saw the accused
assaulting his wife. Thereafter he chased the accused, however,
on hearing the voice of his wife, he (this witness) returned and
called the people of the vicinity. However, in cross-examination,
he has stated that on hearing the voice of his wife, he reached the
place of occurrence. He has admitted that he has not seen the
accused assaulting his wife. This witness is also not an
eyewitness to the incident.
10. (PW-3) Mangal Singh Rathiya has stated that he has not seen the
incident. He was called by (PW-1) Dharam Singh and on his call,
he along with other persons reached the place of incident. He has
further stated that he was informed by (PW-1) Dharam Singh that
the accused has assaulted his wife with Tangia. Thereafter this
witness was declared hostile. (PW-4) Shrawan Kumar Rathiya is
the neighbour of (PW-1) Dharam Singh. He has stated that on the
date of the incident, he saw that the victim has suffered injuries on
her left side of head. After being declared hostile by the
prosecution, he has admitted that on the date of the incident, after
hearing hue and cry raised by (PW-1) Dharam Singh, he reached
the place of the incident and saw that his wife i.e. the victim has
suffered injuries on her head caused by Tangia and blood was
oozing out of injuries. (PW-5) Radheshyam is the related
witness. He has stated that the accused in front of the police has

7
informed him about the incident. This witness was also declared
hostile by the prosecution. (PW-9) Shyam Kumar Sidar is the
Investigating Officer who has proved the FIR (Ex.-P/1) and has
conducted investigation in the matter.
11. According to the prosecution case, apart from Jagmoti (PW-2) and
Dharam Singh (PW-1), there is no other eyewitness to the
incident. The testimony of injured Jagmoti (PW-2) stands
discredited in cross-examination. Furthermore, Dharam Singh
(PW-1) has not deposed to have witnessed the accused
perpetrating the offence. Although the evidence on record
establishes that Jagmoti (PW-2) sustained injuries on her head
and that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause death, however, there is no evidence establishing that the
injury sustained by her was inflicted by the accused.
12. It is well settled principle of law that where two reasonable views
are possible on the evidence adduced before the trial Court, and
the trial Court has acquitted the accused by adopting one of the
views, the appellate Court ought not to interfere with the order of
acquittal merely because another view is also possible.
13. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is evident that the trial Court
has not committed any error of law or fact in acquitting the
accused of the aforesaid charges. The impugned judgment of
acquittal, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this
Court.

8
14. Accordingly, prayer for grant of Leave to Appeal is rejected and
the present CRMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar)
Judge Judge
Barve