Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Suresh Agrawal S/o Late
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:42022 NAFR Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 113 of 2020 Johan Ram Sarthi, S/o Late Mukul Ram Sarthi, R/o C-21, Housing Board Colony, Balco, Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. versus 1. Suresh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bhagirathi Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Jai Stambh Chowk, Police Station Katghori, District - Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ajak, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. For Appellant For Respondent No.2 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 20.08.2025 1. The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Special Judge, (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) (for short the "SC/ST Act") in Special Criminal Case No.04/2019, whereby, the respondent No.1/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 341, 294 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of 2 the SC/ST Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant/complainant has filed written complaint (Ex.P-2) before Police Station AJAK, Korba on 16.03.2017 to the effect that on 22.02.2017 respondent No.1 came to his house and purchased 49 bags of paddy from him. Thereafter, he has dispatched 49 bags of the paddy to the destination. However, in the night hours at about 11 to 11:30 pm the accused called him and told that he has only received 48 bags of paddy and demanded money for remaining paddy. Thereafter, on 23.02.2017 at about 11 hours the accused again called the complainant and made allegation that he has committed fraud with him by giving low quality of paddy. During said conversation, son of the accused namely Akash Agrawal intervened and told the complainant to pay Rs.5000/-. On the same day, in the evening at about 5:15 pm, respondent No.1 with his son Akash came to his shop Ravi Electrical and started quarreling about paddy received by him and also threatened that he would lodge FIR against the complainant. Again on 08.03.2017 at about 1 pm when the complainant was returning from Aarda to Balco, the respondent/ accused obstructed his way, abused him, threatened him and also caught hold of hands of the complainant and pushed him. However, the complainant rescued himself and went to Balco. 3 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the respondent/accused on 13.09.2018 at Police Station Anusuchitjati Kalyan Korba. Caste certificate (Ex.P-4) of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P-1. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-3. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offences mentioned in initial paragraph of this judgment. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Statement of the respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he has not adduced any evidence in his defence. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though material evidence is available on record to establish that respondent No.1/accused has committed the said offence. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment has been passed after proper appreciation of 4 evidence. He also submits that the State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. After perusing the written complaint (Ex.P-2) made by the complainant/appellant and statement of complainant (PW-2), it is explicit that there was dispute with regard to money and paddy which is allegedly not delivered to the respondent by the complainant. As per complaint, the complainant has sold and delivered 49 bags of paddy to the respondent/accused, however, the respondent alleged that he has only received 48 bags of paddy. The accused informed the complainant that he has not received one bag of paddy and also made allegation that complainant has delivered low quality of paddy and committed fraud with him and also threatened the complainant to lodge FIR against him. When son of the accused namely Akash Agrawal intervened in the matter, the complainant himself offered to return Rs.5000/- to the accused on account of loss of paddy. Further, on 23.02.2017 the accused along with his son reached the shop of the complainant where dispute again arose on account of loss of paddy. However, with regard to allegation that the accused uttered abusive words to the complainant, no specific allegation has been made in the complaint. Moreover, the Investigating Officer D. S. Diwan (PW-6) categorically admitted the fact that he has not found any independent witness to support the happening of the incident 5 occurred 08.03.2017. 10.From overall scanning of evidence on record, it appears that there is no specific evidence with regard to caste based atrocity and there was only dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the paddy sold by the complainant to the accused. It also transpires that initially the accused has told the complainant that he would lodge the FIR for the dishonesty/fraud committed by him and thereafter the complainant himself has given colour to the aforesaid dispute. 11.In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 6 12.In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court herein-above, this Court is of the view that the appellant/complainant has failed to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned findings arrived at by the trial Court and the trial Court has recorded cogent reasons while acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one.
Decision
13.In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay