Nafr High Court
Case Details
SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.22 12:45:26 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:13560-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 68 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara (CG). versus ... Appellant Premlal S/o Lakhan Satnami, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Hariharpur, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Judgment on Board. 21.03.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Sessions Trial No.102/2015, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that due to an altercation 2 which took place 4 months prior to the incident, occurred between the complainant- Sakhuwa and the respondent- Premlal, on 14.10.2015, said Sakhuwa had shifted to Bhilai along with his family members for the livelihood as he was threatened by the respondent/accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant- Sakhuwa received an information on 14.10.2015 from one Gulab Das at 11.30 am, that the respondent- Premlal has set his Hut on fire and, upon receiving the said information, he reached his village and has seen that the roof of his Hut has been destroyed due to fire. Based upon his (Sakhuwa) information, an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the respondent on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and upon completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara against the respondent in connection with Crime No. 182/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the Sessions Judge, Bemetara for trial, where, the charge has been framed with regard to the alleged offence against the respondent, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and has exhibited 8 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, 3 arrived at a conclusion that since the statement of an eye-witness, namely, Gulab Das Anant (PW-3) was not corroborated by others’, therefore, based upon his testimony, who had a previous enmity with the respondent, it cannot be held that the respondent is involved in connection with the alleged crime, and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the eye-witness, namely, Gulas Das Anant (PW-3), has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statement of Sushila Bai (PW-8) and Khamman Das Satnami (PW-7), submits that since the statement of the said eye- witness- Gulab Das Anant (PW-3) was not corroborated by them and, that by referring to the statement of Banshilal Satnami (PW-1), the Kotwar of the concerned village, submits that the complainant- Sakhuwa, said Gulab Das and Sushila Bai along with one Chameli Bai used to prepare the false case against the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent 4 as such. 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 respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC. According to the prosecution, since there is previous enmity between the respondent and the complainant- Sakhuwa and because of the threat given by him, said Sakhuwa has shifted to Bhilai along with his family members for their livelihood and, it was alleged further that on 14.10.2015 at 11.00 am, one Gulab Das Anant has seen that the respondent- Premlal has burnt the Hut of said Sakhuwa and, therefore, he immediately informed the occurrence of the alleged incident to him. In order to establish the alleged fact, the prosecution has examined him (Gulab Das Anant) as PW-3, who has stated that he has seen the respondent- Premlal burning his Hut and, the alleged incident was seen by his aunt- Sushila Bai, but his statement is, however, not found to be corroborated by her as she (Sushila Bai), examined as PW-8, has denied specifically the alleged fact. It appears further from his (PW-3) cross-examination, particularly para 2 that he has a previous enmity with the respondent and, it further reveals from his testimony that the previous enmity also exists between the complainant and the respondent. At this juncture, it is to be noted, as revealed from the statement of Banshilal Satnami (PW-1), who is the Kotwar of the concerned village, that the complainant- Sakhuwa, said Gulab Das Anant and his aunt- Sushila Bai, used to lodge the 5 complaint in Police Station against the respondent and prepare unnecessarily false case against him. In view thereof, unless and until his (PW-3) statement is corroborated by cogent and reliable evidence, the respondent cannot be held liable merely, based upon his sole testimony. However, his evidence is not supported by his aunt- Sushila Bai (PW-8), as observed herein-above. That apart, it appears from the statement of one Khamman Das Satnami (PW-7) that he has also seen the alleged incident, but in his cross-examination, it was stated by him that since he has seen the respondent standing nearby the Hut of the complainant- Sakhuwa, therefore, he has raised a doubt upon him that he might have burnt the Hut of said Sakhuwa. In view of such circumstances, we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime. 9. Consequently, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge sunita