Non-examination of material witnesses and medical expert is fatal to prosecution, justifying acquittal.

The State of Chhattisgarh filed an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC challenging the judgment dated 18.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 294, 506-Part II, and 324/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 01.07.2012, while the complainant, Sahodari Paikara (PW-1), was cultivating land with her relatives, the respondents arrived armed with an axe and spade, used obscene language, and threatened to kill them.

PW-1 alleged she was assaulted by Bodhan Paikara, while her cousin Lanjaram (PW-2) and uncle Jagnu Ram were assaulted by the other respondents.

During the trial, two alleged eye-witnesses, Dhansai (PW-3) and Ramkumar (PW-4), did not support the prosecution's version regarding the use of deadly weapons or the occurrence of the incident.

Furthermore, material witnesses including Jagnu Ram, Sagru Ram, and the examining medical officer were not produced by the prosecution.

1. Whether the trial court committed a legal error in acquitting the respondents despite the testimonies of the complainant and her cousin.

2. Whether the non-examination of material injured witnesses and the medical officer is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Court primarily considered Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs the state's right to appeal against an order of acquittal.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 506-Part II (criminal intimidation), and 324 read with 34 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court applied the evidentiary principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that material contradictions in witness testimonies and the unexplained omission of key witnesses/medical evidence undermine the reliability of the prosecution's narrative.

The Court observed significant inconsistencies between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the initial police report (Ex.D-2).

While PW-1 claimed her father, Sagru Ram, was present during the rescue, his name was absent from the original report.

Further, the testimony of PW-2 regarding the specific roles of the accused contradicted the account provided by PW-1.

The Court highlighted that the purported eye-witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, explicitly denied seeing the incident or the presence of deadly weapons, directly refuting the complainant's claims.

Critically, the Court found that the prosecution failed to examine Jagnu Ram and Sagru Ram—who were allegedly assaulted—and failed to examine the Doctor who conducted the medical examinations.

The absence of medical corroboration and the failure to produce the actual victims of the alleged assault created a void in the evidence that prevented a conviction.

The Court found no illegality or propriety issues in the lower court's judgment that would warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.