1 - Raju Soni S/o Srinath Soni Aged About 49 Years R/o Village v. 1 - Vishal Soni @ Golu Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Namnakala, Near
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 269 of 2025 1 - Raju Soni S/o Srinath Soni Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Phundurdihari (Turrapani), Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Vishal Soni @ Golu Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o Namnakala, Near Power House, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, Person) District (Accused Surguja (C.G.), - 2 - Roshan Soni S/o Lalal Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Namnakala, Near Power House, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, (C.G.) District Surguja - 3 - Lalan Soni S/o Late Hirihar Prasad Soni Aged About 67 Years R/o Namnakala, Near Power House, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, (C.G.) District Tahsil Ambikapur, Surguja - - 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent/ State : Shri HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. : Shri S.D. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 10/06/2025 KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.06.11 11:01:16 +0530 2 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7.3.2025 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Criminal Appeal No.43/2024 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court on 29.8.2024 and acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 435/34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant Raju Soni (PW-1) has lodged an FIR (Ex.-P/1-P/12) on 9.1.2020 at about 16.30 hours at Police Station Ambikapur (Rural), Gandhi Nagar against unknown persons stating that the marriage of his daughter was fixed with accused Vishal Soni, however, the said marriage could not be materialized, as accused Vishal Soni did not like such marriage, because of which he was having enmity with the complainant. It is also averred that on 8.1.2020 at about 4.30 hours when the complainant returned from his school, accused Vishal informed him that one day before he was ousted from the Whatsapp group of Soni Society. Therefore, the complainant went to the house of Vishal on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15/DD-9704, however, accused Vishal was not present in the house and his two brothers namely, Vikas, Roshan and his father were present and they raised quarrel with the complainant. The complainant left his motorcycle near the house of Vishal and reached the Police Station in the night about 10-11 hours. His cousin Sanjay Soni (PW-6) had informed that unknown persons had set his motorcycle on fire. 3. Crime details form (Ex.-P/2) was prepared. Burnt motorcycle was seized from the spot vide Ex.-P/3. Panchanama was prepared vide Ex.-P/4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Memorandum statement of 3 accused Vishal was recorded vide Ex.-P/9 and in pursuance of the said memorandum petrol like liquid and match box were seized vide Ex.-P/11. Registration papers were seized from the complainant vide Ex.-P/10. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents/accused persons. The trial Court i.e. the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ambikapur in criminal case No.474/2020 convicted the respondents/accused under Section 435/34 of the IPC and awarded sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs.1500/- each with usual default stipulations, against which the respondents/accused preferred an Appeal before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur vide CRA No.43/2024, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 7th March, 2025. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons. The learned appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well merited judgment passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel prays to allow the Appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the incident took place on 8.1.2020 at about 20-23 hours and complainant Raju Soni (PW-1) has lodged an FIR against unknown persons. In the FIR, he has raised suspicion against accused Vishal Soni, as earlier, his daughter’s marriage was fixed with accused Vishal, which could not be materialized, as the accused did not 4 agree for the same. Manik Kumar (PW-2), who is the neighbour of the complainant, has deposed that at the time of incident accused Vishal has damaged the motorcycle by using club and thereafter the said accused has set the motorcycle on fire. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that he has no terms with the respondents/accused. 8. Further, Sandip Soni (PW-9) has deposed differently that all the accused persons have caused the incident. He would further depose that he has informed about the said incident to his brother-in-law Sanjay Soni (PW- 6), however, the said Sanjay Soni has not stated so and he has been declared hostile. Sanjay Soni is the cousin brother of the victim. Kanhaiyya Soni, who is the brother of the victim, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been declared hostile. 9. Rajesh (PW-3) and Manish Shukla (PW-4) who are also neighbours of the complainant have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. Witnesses to the memorandum and seizure namely, (PW-7) Satyam and (PW-8) Anil Gupta have also been declared hostile and they have also not confirmed the proceeding which was conducted by the I.O. (PW-10) Rakesh Singh, vide Ex.-P/9 and seizure memo vide Ex.-P/10. 10. Moreover, 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 5 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 evidences brought on record contrary to law. 11. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for 6 doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case. Considering the exaggerations, contradictions and omissions which are fatal, this Court is also of the view that the appellate Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 435/34 of the IPC and the view taken by the appellate Court is possible one. 13. No case is made out for interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court. 14. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Barve