Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Pal @ Suraj Pal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10862
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1216 of 2016
Hemant Pal @ Suraj Pal S/o Shankar Pal Aged About 21
Years R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Digjam Showroom Street,
Pandri, Police Station Civil Line, Civil And Revenue District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant.
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
Police Station Pandri Mova, Raipur, Civil And Revenue
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 02.03.2026
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned Session Judge, Raipur, in Session Trial No.36/2016, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: 2
Conviction Sentence
Under Section Fine of Rs.500/-, in default
147 of the IPC. of payment of fine, 01
month additional Simple
Imprisonment.
Under Section Imprisonment of the period
324/149 of the spent by the accused in jail
IPC. during trial (from 18.11.2015
to 05.08.2016) and fine of
Rs. 1000/-, in default of
payment of fine, 02 months
additional SI.
Both sentence run concurrently
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that Anis's younger brother Amir Khan had a scrap shop place beneath the over bridge. On 16.11.2015, at about 4.30. p.m, While Anis was crossing from back side of said scrap shop on his pickup vehicle, he saw two boys namely accused Abdul Habib and Bagirathi and a girl were talking and has parked their vehicles in such a way that the persons were facing difficulty in crossing that place, to which, Anis asked them to park their vehicle in proper manner, on which, they said that who are you to ask them to park the vehicle in proper manner and abused him (Anis). Anis parked his vehicle in one side and came down from his vehicle, then his brother Amir Khan also came there and encapsulated them, which resulted in altercation and they went by saying that we will teach you in 3 sometime and after this Anis also went away. After one hour when Amir khan was sitting alone in his shop, then the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons came there and started abusing and assaulting the Amir Khan by means of rod and stick (danda). When Anis and other people came in between, accused persons ran away from the spot. Complainant Amir Khan fainted and was taken to the hospital and, thereafter, based on report, FIR was registered against the appellant and other co-accused for the alleged offence/crime.
3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed and based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against the appellant.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. However, no evidence was adduced by appellant in his defence. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of 4 this judgment. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the law and facts available on record. Learned trial Court has completely overlooked the evidence of complainant Amir Khan (P.W.-1), because he specifically said in his cross examination that accused Habib, Hakim and Bagirathi has abused and assaulted him and this appellant has not assaulted him, this appellant was not present at the time of incident." Complainant has not disclosed the name of the appellant among the persons who assaulted him. Prosecution has failed to produce any medical evidence regarding grievous injuries as Dr. Gambhir Singh (P.W.8) has stated that all the injuries of the complainant Amir Khan were simple in nature. Prosecution further failed to adduce any evidence to show that the injury caused by the appellant was sufficient to cause death of victim/injured in ordinary course of nature. Learned trial Court has wrongly relied on the evidence of Anis (P.W.-6), who was projected as an eye witness of the incident by the prosecution. Trial Court further failed to appreciate the seizure, memorandum and eye- witnesses P.W-3, P.W-5, P.W-6 and P.W-7, who all have turned hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution. The learned trial Court further failed to 5 appreciate the evidence of Investigating Officer Sabder Ali (P.W.-9), who has seized the Rod from the co-accused persons (Mohd. Sarfarz, Bhagirathi, Abdul Habib) and stick (Danda) from the co-accused (Hakim Khan and Wazid Khan), but nothing has been seized from this appellant. Neither name of present appellant mention in the FIR nor any of the prosecution witnesses have taken his name to be present in the scene of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that there are specific evidence available against the appellant of committing the alleged offence. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record including the impugned judgment.
9. With regard to the incident, the Injured/Aamir Khan (PW-1) in his evidence has stated that he identified the accused persons present before the Court by their faces. On the date of alleged incident, his brother Anish Khan came to his shop by driving a pickup vehicle, when he was approaching the 6 shop, a girl was standing on the road after stopping the vehicle across the way and was talking to two boys, namely Bhagirathi and Habib, at that time, Anis Khan asked them to move the vehicle to the side, to which, accused Bhagirathi and Habib started abusing him in filthy language and threatening him and, thereafter, both the accused persons started scuffling with his brother, thereafter, they went from there by saying that we will teach you. After some time, when he (PW-1) was sitting alone at his shop, at that time, seven to eight boys, including the accused persons present before the Court, came there abused him and, thereafter, started assaulting him by means of iron rods. Accused Abdul Hakim assaulted him by the rod. Accused-Firdous, who resides near my house intervened and tried to pacify the matter. Due to assault, he sustained injuries on the back side of his head, hand and leg. He further stated that except the accused Firdous, he did not previously know any of the other accused persons present before the Court. At the time of lodging of report and while giving the statement to the police, he had described the appearance, complexion, height and build of the boys sitting on the motorcycle and had provided their complete description. He now states that it is possible that he had not given the description of the boys, the police had shown him the photographs of boys on 7 Facebook on their mobile phone and, thereafter, he identified the accused including the present appellant.
10. Perusal of records shows that appellant is not named in the FIR (Ex.P-1) and as per FIR injured/complainant did not knows the present appellant and he only identified the accused Bhagirathi and Habib. PW-1/Injured in his evidence also admitted that except the accused Firdous, he did not previously know any of the other accused persons. As per his evidence, only on the basis of photographs of boys shown on Facebook on mobile phone by the Investigation Officer, he identified the accused including the present appellant, hence, it is clear that at the time of incident, injured has not identified the present appellant.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-9/IO has recorded the statements of injured/complainant and his brother Anis Khan, but he did not mention the name of present appellant in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC. Further, Identification parade has not been conducted by the Police under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act.
12. As per evidence of PW-9/Shabdar Ali, Assistant Sub- Inspector (Investigation Officer), he has seized the Rod from the co-accused persons (Mohd. Sarfarz, Bhagirathi, Abdul Habib) and stick (Danda) from the co-accused (Hakim Khan 8 and Wazid Khan), but nothing has been seized from this appellant.
13. As per evidence of injured/Aamir Khan, his brother Anis Khan was present on spot at the time of alleged incident, however, Anis Khan (PW-6) has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
14. PW-2/Mannu Soni, PW-3/Jadvo Raina & PW-4/Golu Mishra (Eye-witnesses of the incident) and PW-5/Mohd Alim and PW-7Keshav Sahu (memorandum witnesses) have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon careful appreciation of the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the present appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The injured witness has himself admitted that he did not previously know the present appellant and that he identified him only on the basis of photographs shown by the Investigating Officer on a mobile phone. Moreover, no Test Identification Parade was conducted during the investigation. The alleged weapon has also not been seized from the present appellant. Further, the material witnesses including the eye- witnesses of the incident and Anis/PW-6 (brother of injured) 9 have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement and guilt of the present appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2016 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges/offence.
17. 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/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-