Santuram S/o Shri Chatur Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Bagar, Police Station v. 1.Nilesh Kumar Sharma S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 306 of 2025 Santuram S/o Shri Chatur Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Bagar, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara (CG.) ... Appellant/complainant versus 1.Nilesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Indra Kumar Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bagar, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) (Accused) 2.State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) (Prosecution) ... Respondents For appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board dated 13.08.2025 This appeal under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short) has been filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, CG in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2024 setting aside the judgment dated 09.05.2024 passed by JMFC, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, CG in Criminal Case No. 1860/2016 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, plus default stipulation. 2 2. Facts of the case brief are that accused/respondent No.1 was posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade -III in government Higher Secondary School, Borasi, Block Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, CG since 31.12.2010 by virtue of appointment obtained on the basis of disability certificate. Documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of Janpad Panchayat, Kasdol and also from Medical Board, Raipur. As per the information supplied by the Medical Board, Raipur, nothing was disclosed in respect of the disability of respondent No.1 and as such the disability certificate produced by him in the year 2010 is a forged one. On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant, case was registered against respondent No.1 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. On charge being framed, trial commenced where prosecution examined its witnesses followed by recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/respondent No.1 as shown above but on appeal, learned lower appellate court set aside the same and acquitted him of the charge levelled against him. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the finding recorded by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused are based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore the lower appellate court has gone wrong in reversing the well reasoned judgment and thus acquitting the accused of the charge levelled against him. He thus submits that the judgment impugned may be set aside and the one passed by learned trial Court may be maintained. 4. There is no representation on behalf of accused/respondent No.1. State counsel however assisted the Court. 5. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned lower appellate Court after making assessment of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has held that the prosecution has not 3 been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent/accused had forged the disability certificate in any manner whatsoever and obtained the employment on that basis, and thus has set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him. This Court does not see any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court by which it had convicted the respondent/accused under under Section 420 IPC. 7. Even otherwise, time and again it has been enunciated by the Supreme Court that if the material available on record gives rise to two possible and plausible views, the one favour the accused has to be preferred. Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 observed that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re- appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be 4 sustained. 8. In the case of M.C.Ali and another v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion drawn by the the lower appellate Court in acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him by setting 5 aside the order of the trial Court, appears to be fully justified warranting no interference in this appeal. Appeal is thus dismissed and the judgment impugned is hereby maintained. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.08.20 10:40:55 +0530