Ibrahim Memon, S/o Sattar, Age 52 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) v. 1- Bilal Memon S/o Usman Memon Age 60 years, 2- Roshan Memon W/o Bilal
Case Details
1 / 13 2025:CGHC:21254-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 82 of 2011 Ibrahim Memon, S/o Sattar, Age 52 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Appellant versus 1- Bilal Memon S/o Usman Memon Age 60 years, 2- Roshan Memon W/o Bilal Memon Age 45 years, 3-Mohd. Rafiq S/o Mohd. Bilal Memon, Age 28 years, 4- Mohd. Shahnawaz Memon, S/o Bilal Memon, Age 21 years, Respondents No.1 to 4 are R/o Juni Line, Thana City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5- Ashraf Memon, S/o Bilal Memon Age 42 years, R/o Masanganj, Thana City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6- State of Chhattisgarh, through Station Incharge, City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent No.6 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. WITH VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.05.12 11:04:14 +0530 2 / 13 ACQA No. 124 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1- Bilal Memon S/o Usman Memon Age 60 years, 2- Roshan Memon W/o Bilal Memon Age 45 years, 3-Mohd. Rafiq S/o Mohd. Bilal Memon, Age 28 years, 4- Mohd. Shahnawaz Memon, S/o Bilal Memon, Age 21 years, Respondents No.1 to 4 are R/o Juni Line, Thana City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5- Ashraf Memon, S/o Bilal Memon Age 42 years, R/o Masanganj, Thana City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For State/Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate WITH ACQA No. 167 of 2011 Ashraf Meman S/o M. Usman Latif aged about 42 years, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1- Habib Meman S/o Sattar aged about 51 years, 2- Ibrahim Meman S/o Abdul Sattar, aged about 52 years, Both are R/o Juni Line, Police City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3- State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) 3 / 13 For Appellant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. WITH ACQA No. 168 of 2011 Mohd. Bilal S/o Usman Age 62 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1- Habib Meman S/o Sattar aged about 53 years, 2- Smt. Nazma Meman, W/o Habib Meman Aged about 40 years, 3- Moinuddin S/o Ibrahim Meman Aged about 18 years, 4- Rajia Meman W/o Ibrahimm Meman Aged about 42 years, 5- Ibrahim Meman S/o Abdul Sattar Aged about 52 years, All are R/o Juni Line PS Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 6- State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents For State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. WITH ACQA No. 15 of 2012 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Appellant 4 / 13 Versus 1- Habib Meman S/o Sattar aged about 51 years, 5- Ibrahim Meman S/o Abdul Sattar Aged about 52 years, Both are R/o Juni Line PS Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For State/Appellant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate WITH ACQA No. 16 of 2012 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1- Habib Meman S/o Sattar aged about 53 years, 2- Smt. Nazma Meman, W/o Habib Meman Aged about 40 years, 3- Moinuddin S/o Ibrahim Meman Aged about 18 years, 4- Rajia Meman W/o Ibrahimm Meman Aged about 42 years, 5- Ibrahim Meman S/o Abdul Sattar Aged about 52 years, All are R/o Juni Line PS Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For State/Appellant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judge Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Hon'ble Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 5 / 13 08.05.2025 1. 2. Since all the acquittal appeals are arising out by the common issue, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. Acquittal Appeal No.82 of 2011 filed by the private counsel and Acquittal Appeal No. 124 of 2011 filed by the State arise out of same judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.354 of 2005, whereby the accused/respondents - Bilal Memon, Roshan Memon and Ashraf Memon have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 147, 307 IPC in the alternative, Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 in the alternative, Section 323/149 of IPC and accused- respondents Mohd. Rafiq & Mohd. Shahnawaz have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 147, 307 IPC in the alternative, Section 307/149, 323 IPC in the alternative, Section 323/149 and Section 148 of IPC. 3. Acquittal Appeal No.167 of 2011 filed by the private counsel and Acquittal Appeal No. 15 of 2012 filed by the State arise out of same judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.30 of 2006, whereby the accused/respondents – Habib Meman & Ibrahim Meman have been acquitted from the offence punishable under 6 / 13 Sections 341/34 and 323/34 of IPC. 4. Acquittal Appeal No.168 of 2011 filed by the private counsel and Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2012 filed by the State arise out of same judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.31 of 2006, whereby the accused/respondents – Habib Meman, Nazma Meman, Moinuddin, Rajia Meman & Ibrahim Meman have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 294 read with Section 34, Section 506-B read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the younger daughter of Rafiq defecated in front of house of Razia. On the same issue, a dispute took place between both the fractions, i.e., one is Habib Meman, Smt. Nazma Meman, Moinuddin, Rajiya Meman and Ibrahim Meman and the other fraction, i.e., Bilal Memon, Roshan Memon, Mohd. Rafiq, Mohd. Shahnawaz Memon and Ashraf Memon and they assaulted each other in which Habib Meman and others assaulted by way of hand & fist and Bilal Memon and others assaulted by way of iron rod, hockey, stone etc. Thereafter, the reports were lodged. 6. 7. Charges were framed under the different Sections of the IPC against both the parties. When the charge-sheet was read out to the accused and explained to 7 / 13 them, they pleaded guilty to the crime and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution had examined the witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses against them and said that they were innocent, but no witness was examined in the defence. 8. 9. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges leveled against them. Hence, these appeals. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in ACQA No. 82 of 2011 would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is
Decision
contrary to facts, evidence and law and the impugned judgment is based on the surmises and conjectures. He would further submit that the medical report clearly shows that there were multiple head injuries on the appellants and still the accused-respondents were acquitted. 10. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State-appellant in ACQA No.124 of 2011, ACQA No.15 of 2012 & ACQA No.16 of 2012 would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them. He would further submit that the learned trial Court is not justified in discarding the whole prosecution evidence specifically that 8 / 13 of the injured persons. It is respectfully submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution in its perspective. The learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the whole prosecution case and has arrived at the conclusion that since, the alleged weapons of offence were not seized the factum of assault given by accused persons with deadly weapons is not established. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2011 may be set aside. 11. Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in ACQA No. 167 of 2011 & ACQA No. 168 of 2011 would submit that the order of trial Court is bad in law which is not based upon the material witnesses as well as the documents produced by the prosecution. The learned trial Court failed to consider the medical report clearly shows that there were multiple injuries on the body of appellant and still the accused- respondents were acquitted. He would further submit that the learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.-1 (Ashraf Meman), P.W. 3 (Irshad Ali), P.W. 4 (Sayyed Akbar All), who are eyewitness of the incident. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of acquittal of accused-respondents be set-aside. 12. These are the appeals against the judgment of acquittal filed by private party under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC and memorandum of appeal under Section 378(1) of CrPC by the State and in exercising the appellate 9 / 13 jurisdiction under Section 378(1) or under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., the appellate Courts are required to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box and also required to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonably person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 13. As held by the Supreme Court in C.Antony v. Raghavan Nair1, unless the High Court arrives at definite conclusion that the findings recorded by trial Court are perverse, it would not substitute its own view on a totally different perspective and also as held by the Supreme Court in Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha2, the appellate Court in considering the appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 14. The scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is well settled. In Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab3, the Supreme Court has held in para 6 as under:- 1 AIR 2003 SC 182 2 AIR 2004 SC 1053 3 AIR 1987 SC 1083 10 / 13 “……….the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere within an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” 15. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal the High Courts or the appellate Courts are fully empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court is required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, 11 / 13 which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 17. 18. In the light of aforesaid dictum and proposition of law, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, the injuries have been inflicted by both the parties to each other and in all cases and the trial Court has held that the dispute occurred between both the parties on account of which they gathered on the place of occurrence and the trial Court has further held that it cannot be said that all of them gathered by constituted an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common intention and the prosecution has not produced any seizure memo and no weapon has been seized from any one. There are various contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence do not support the case 12 / 13 of prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the doubt and acquitted all the persons. 19. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court recorded the finding that in view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, it can never be concluded that the chain of circumstances is not complete. Thus, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted the accused/respondents giving benefit of doubt. 20. After considering the materials available on record as well as the elaborate impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favored the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents by giving them benefit of doubt is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 21. Accordingly, all these acquittal appeals filed by the private party as well 13 / 13 as the State against the acquittal of the accused/respondents from the aforesaid offence are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vasant