Wife Could Not Identify Husband As Attacker In Cross-Examination: Chhattisgarh HC Leaves Acquittal Undisturbed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the evidence established that the respondent inflicted the injury on Jagmoti and committed the offences charged under Sections 307 and 450 IPC

The court held

The High Court held that the acquittal disclosed no error of law or fact warranting interference.

It also directed

It rejected the State’s prayer for leave to appeal and dismissed the CRMP

01Facts

The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of Bindheshwar Rathiya of charges under Sections 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶ 1–2

The prosecution alleged that, during the night, the accused entered the complainant’s house and struck the complainant’s wife, Jagmoti, on the head with a tangia

¶ 1–2

The trial court acquitted him, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to establish his identity as the assailant.

¶ 3–4

The State challenged that decision, relying on the witnesses’ evidence, the prompt FIR, and medical evidence of serious injury.

¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the evidence established that the respondent inflicted the injury on Jagmoti and committed the offences charged under Sections 307 and 450 IPC

¶ 8–11

ii.2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal disclosed an error warranting the High Court’s interference at the leave-to-appeal stage

¶ 12–14

03Law Applied

The charges were under Sections 307 and 450 IPC

¶ 1, 3

The Court applied the settled principle that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence and the trial court has adopted one of them to acquit the accused, an appellate court should not interfere merely because another view is also possible

¶ 12

The judgment cites no other statutory provision or precedent.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307 Section 450

04Reasoning

Although the medical evidence established that Jagmoti sustained a serious head injury, the Court found no reliable evidence identifying the respondent as the person who inflicted it.

¶ 11

Jagmoti’s evidence that she saw the accused was contradicted in cross-examination, where she stated that she could not see who struck her.

¶ 8

The complainant likewise admitted that he had not seen the assault, while the remaining witnesses did not witness it.

¶ 9–10

In those circumstances, the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable view of the evidence and did not warrant appellate interference.

¶ 11–13