Anil Kaushik S/o Late Gajju Ram Kaushik Aged About 55 Years R/o Jwahar Ward v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.24 13:55:00 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:35343-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 111 of 2018 Anil Kaushik S/o Late Gajju Ram Kaushik Aged About 55 Years R/o Jwahar Ward Kaushik Gali Post Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (CG) (Complainant) --- Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar (CG) Prosecution. 2 - Jaspal Singh S/o Sardar Jogender Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Azad Chowk Purana Bhatti Road Jagdalpur Police Station Bodhghat District Bastar(CG) 3 - Sattar Ali S/o Late S. Sarfaraz Ali Aged About 43 Years R/o Ashoka Park Dharampura Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) 4 - Devendra Singh @ Chinni Sardar S/o Vikkar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Din Dayal Upadhyay Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar(CG) 5 - Malkit Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar(CG) 6 - Mukesh Mishra S/o Rajendra Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar(CG) --- Respondents For Appellant For State/Respondent No.1 For Respondents No. 2 to 6
Legal Reasoning
:Shri Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate :Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. :Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate appears along with Shri Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate 2 AND ACQA No. 121 of 2018 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, (CG) Versus ---Appellant 1 - Jaspal Singh S/o Sardar Jogendra Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o- Azad Chowk Purana Bhatti Road, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District- Bastar (CG) 2 - Sattar Ali S/o Late S. Sarafraj Ali Aged About 43 Years R/o- Ashoka Park Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) 3 - Devendra Singh @ Chinni Sardar S/o Vikkar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o- Dindayal Upadhyay Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) 4 - Malkeet Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o- Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) 5 - Mukesh Mishra S/o Rajendra Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o- Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (CG) --- Respondents For Appellant/State For Respondents :Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. :Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate appears along with Shri Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 23.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.26/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 342/34 and 395/
Decision
34 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2013, a written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the Complainant- Anil Kaushik before the Police Station, Bodhghat, District Bastar, alleging therein, that his brother, namely, Arun Kaushik having the Trucks and out of those, two Trucks, bearing registration No.CG04 JC 4476 and CG 04 E 7338, were looted/taken away illegally on 02.03.2013 at 3.30 pm by the officers of Bastar Transport Union, Jagdalpur, while threatening the drivers of the alleged Trucks and that by snatching the mobile and, it was alleged further that one of the Truck driver was restrained wrongfully. 3. Based upon the aforesaid information and since the matter was pertaining to Police Station, Bhanpuri, it was, therefore, referred to the said Police Station, where the First Information Report (Ex. P-6) was registered on 09.03.2013 against unknown persons/officers of the said Union for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 392 and 342 of IPC in connection with Crime No.32/2013 and, during investigation, both the Trucks were recovered in abandoned condition near the Shiv Mandir of village Bodhghat on 10.03.2013 vide Ex.P-4 and thereafter, given on Supurdnama to the Complainant-Anil Kaushik on 14.03.2013 vide Ex.P-3. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 392, 342 and 294 of IPC and, the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge under Sections 294, 342/34 and 395/34 of IPC has been framed against the respondents, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the Complainant (PW-1), observed that despite knowing the names of the accused persons from his Munshi- Devi Prasad on 02.03.2013, the same were not disclosed at the time of lodging the report (Ex.P-2) on 05.03.2013 and, therefore, his version cannot be relied upon. In consequence, the respondents have been held to be innocent and have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeals have been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, as the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 294, 342/34 and 395/34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 02.03.2013 at 3.30 pm. According to the prosecution, the Trucks bearing registration No.CG04 JC 4476 and CG 04 E 7338, owned by the Complainant’s brother, namely, Arun Kaushik, were taken away illegally by the respondents, the officers of the Bastar Transport Union, Jagdalpur on 02.03.2013 at 3.30 pm 5 while threatening its drivers and that by snatching the mobile from one of the driver. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the Complainant- Anil Kaushik was examined as PW-1 and, it appears from his testimony, particularly para 2, that in the evening around 5-6 pm, on the said fateful day, he received the information from his Munshi (Clerk), namely, Devi Prasad regarding taken away of his brother’s alleged Trucks illegally, who also informed him that the respondents after enquiring the owner of the alleged Trucks have abused him with filthy words and informed further that the drivers of the Trucks have parked the same in the house of one Abbas Bhai. He (Devi Prasad) informed him further that, thereafter, he and driver- Shrawan Kumar has fled away. It is to be seen further, as reflected from para 16 of his testimony, that despite knowing the name of the respondents/ accused on 02.03.2013 from his Munshi- Devi Prasad, the names of theirs’ have, however, not been disclosed by him in his written report (Ex.P-2), lodged on 05.03.2013, nor was in a position to state as to why it was not disclosed by him. 10. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the statement of drivers, namely, Shravan Kumar Netam (PW-6) and Santosh Kumar (PW-8) that on the date of the incident itself, they informed the Complainant that the alleged vehicles were taken away by the respondents. But, the Complainant (PW-1) has, however, not stated so that he received the information from them and, in fact, as revealed from para 16 of his testimony, he received the alleged information from his said Munshi- Devi Prasad. Devi Prasad Pandey (PW-9), the Munshi of said Complainant has, however, stated that he informed the alleged incident to him in the morning, i.e. on 03.03.2013. The evidence of Complainant has, thus, not found to be corroborated. 6 11. That apart, although it was alleged by the prosecution that a mobile set was snatched from one of the driver of the alleged Trucks, but neither the name of the driver from whom, the same was snatched, nor any recovery to this effect has been made by the prosecution, so as to hold that a mobile set was snatched, as alleged. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed on record. 12. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court, upon taking note of the materials available on record, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 13. Both these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita