Meethoo Chakraborty S/o Pallav Chakraborty Aged About 41 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Plot No v. 1. Shivprakash Mishra @ Baba S/o Late Kashinath Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.01 10:53:21 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:37162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 527 of 2025 Meethoo Chakraborty S/o Pallav Chakraborty Aged About 41 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Plot No. 106, P.S.- Sarkanda, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant. versus 1. Shivprakash Mishra @ Baba S/o Late Kashinath Mishra Aged About 39 Years R/o Behind Shivam City, Rajkishore Nagar, P.S.- Sarkanda, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant For Res No.2 : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate. Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Decision
Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) assailing the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2025 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, District Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.32/2022 affirming the judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.4755/2016, whereby, respondent 2 No.1/Shivprakash was acquitted of the charge under Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with offence of attempt to commit robbery. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.10.2016 the complainant Mithoo Chakraborty (PW-1) lodged an FIR before Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur to the effect that on 09.10.2016 she along with her daughter Priyanshi Chakraborty (PW-3) went for shopping in connection with Durg Pooja. When she returned home and parked her Activa outside her house, at about 3:51 pm, one person came in white color Activa and asked her about address of one Gopal Chakraborty, to which, the complainant replied that she has no information about such person. After a moment, when she told her daughter to open the gate of the house, suddenly said person came there and tried to snatch gold chain from the neck of the complainant. The complainant also tried to catch hold of the said person and raised hue and cry. On hearing her noise, her husband and daughter also came outside the house and chased the said person, however, he fled away from the spot in his Activa. Later on, they came to know that the said chain snatcher was respondent Shivam @ Baba Mishra. 3. On the basis of aforesaid information FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-2. The Activa vehicle of respondent No.1 was seized vide property seizure memo (Ex.P-3). The complainant/appellant was medically examined by Dr. K. Nahrel (PW-5) who submitted medical report (Ex.P-4) wherein he found abrasion over neck in sternal notch in the round shape having size of 0.25 c.m. 3 Statement of witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 393 of the IPC. 4. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. On the other hand, respondent No.1/accused pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge as mentioned in initial paragraph of this order. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant/ complainant preferred an appeal, however, the appeal has also been dismissed and judgment of acquittal was affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have committed grave error in not appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective as there is reliable witness to the injury sustained by complainant (PW-1) who is the Dr. K. Nahrel (PW-5). This witness has corroborated the version of the injury sustained by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance in the matter of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 to submit that law is well settled with regard to testimony of injured witness. She submits that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. In view of such submission, learned 4 counsel prays to allow the revision and to set-aside the impugned of judgment of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment. She also submits that the State has not preferred any appeal against judgment of acquittal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record. 9. In the present case, the appellate Court has recorded the finding with regard to the date of lodging of FIR that incident happened on 09.10.2016 and same was reported to the police on 12.10.2016. However, no sufficient reason has been shown for such delay. Both the appellant/complainant (PW-1) and her husband Pallab Chakraborty (PW- 2) deposed that immediately after the incident they informed the Police Station Sarkanda over phone and within 10 minutes two police were reached to the spot, but surprisingly the police did not lodge the FIR same day even after reporting of the incident. The appellant/complainant (PW-1) has also deposed that she has made written complaint before the Police Station, however, no such complaint has been filed or proved by the appellant. Moreover, cross-examination of Dr. K. Nahrel (PW-5) has also not been conducted on the ground that counsel for defence witness was busy before another Court. Counsel, at the bar, has not disputed the fact that the doctor (PW-5) has not been cross-examined at all. In such circumstances evidence of this witness remains insignificant. 10. Further, no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution. The husband of the complainant (PW-2) in his cross-examination stated that later on after 5 the incident, in the evening between 6-7 pm when he along with her daughter went to Kirana shop, he saw similar person like the accused and asked his daughter to identify, him then she told that the said person is the accused. Thereafter, named FIR was lodged by the complainant. 11. From scanning of evidence of the witnesses, it is quite vivid that there is no material evidence against the respondent/accused to connect him with the crime in question and only on apprehension the accused was charged for the said offence. Learned appellate Court, while acquitting the accused, has also observed that where it is possible to have both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should be adopted. 12. For the foregoing and considering the overall evidence on record, this Court does not find any substantial reason or evidence to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts. Further, there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment impugned and same has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 13. In the result, the Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay