State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Rahul Singh S/o Krishna Singh Rajput, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 597 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Rahul Singh S/o Krishna Singh Rajput, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Avasarpur, Post Risiyap, Police Station Risiyap, District Aurangabad Bihar 2 - Mohd. Salim Ansari S/o Samsuddin, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gobarbandha, Post Bariyar District Hajaribag, Jharkhand 3 - Niraj Kumar S./o Vijay Singh Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kadokhari, Police Station NTPC - Khaira, District Aurangabad, Bihar ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate For Respondents : None General Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 24/07/2025 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.1.2019 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.97/2016, whereby, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 294, 186, 353 & 333/34 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of the incident i.e. 24.3.2016, complainant, Head Constable Mohan Lal Sahu (No.785), was deputed to maintain law and order in Village Urla, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Pulgaon. The accused persons, in a forceful manner, tried to apply Gulal (colour) on his face. He informed them that he was on law and order duty and forbade them from doing so. However, the accused, becoming annoyed, abused the complainant using filthy language by referring to his mother and sister, and assaulted him with hands, fists, a club as well as with an iron punch, as a result of which he sustained injuries to his face and suffered a nasal bone fracture. On the basis of the information given by the complainant, the FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered at Police Station Pulgaon against respondents Rahul Singh and two others. The Crime Detail Form was prepared vide Ex.P/3. The uniform of the complainant was seized vide Ex.P/2. From accused/respondent No.1 Rahul Singh, one club and an iron punch were seized pursuant to his memorandum (Ex.P/4), vide Ex.P/5. Bar License was seized vide 3 Ex.P/6. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-5), who gave his report vide Ex.P/9. The report of the Radiologist, Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW-4), was obtained vide Ex.P/8, wherein he opined that the complainant had sustained a fracture of the nasal bone. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, it was revealed that the respondents, other than Rahul, were also identified as they had accompanied him. 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. After committal of the case by the jurisdictional Magistrate, during the trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents vide Ex.P/1 to ExP/24. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused/respondents stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and took the defence that the Police Personnel demanded illegal money from the bar, and when they refused to pay, a false case was filed against them. In their defence, Rakesh Gupta (DW-1) was examined. 5. The trial Court after evaluation of the evidence, acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence, this Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the State/appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 4 7. Despite repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, although power has been filed on their behalf. 8. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellant and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Admittedly, the trial Court took into consideration the inconsistencies in the statements of the material witnesses and, further, the fact that even complainant-Mohan Lal Sahu (PW-1) was inconsistent, as he categorically deposed that there was no role of one of the accused, namely Niraj Kumar, and specifically deposed during cross-examination that he was not aware who had assaulted him on his face using an iron punch. However, in his chief examination, he has specifically stated that respondent/accused- Rahul assaulted him using an iron punch. 10. A perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/1) lodged by the complainant himself reveals that it is nowhere stated therein that Rahul assaulted him using a punch. Instead, it is mentioned that one of Rahul’s friends assaulted him using a punch, and another friend beat him using a glove. Therefore, there are material contradictions between the information given by the complainant in the FIR (Ex.P/1) and his statement before the Court. 11. Another witness, namely Constable Devi Shankar Dewangan (PW-10), who had accompanied the complainant on duty on the said date, gave a different version. He deposed that the accused persons snatched the cane from the complainant, Mohan Lal Sahu (PW-1), and used it to beat him. Shekh Aazam (PW-7) 5 deposed that accused- Rahul has assaulted the complainant by using punch. Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-5) examined the complainant on 24.3.2016 at 7:52 p.m. and found a single injury on his face above the nose. For further examination of the said injury, the complainant was also examined by Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW-4), Radiologist, who proved his report vide Ex.P/8 and opined that the complainant’s nasal bone was fractured. 12. Independent witnesses Domendra Soni (PW-2) and Banshi Sonkar (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. Except for Rahul, the other accused persons, namely Mohd. Salim Ansari and Niraj Kumar, were identified based on the information provided by these witnesses; however, they clearly deposed that they were unaware of any such incident and did not support the Investigating Officer, Vinay Singh Baghel (PW-9), regarding the seizure of the punch and club vide Seizure Memo Ex.P/5, pursuant to the memorandum (Ex.P/4) of accused -Rahul. Considering the aforesaid infirmities, the trial Court has recorded a finding of acquittal against the accused persons. 13. 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 6 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 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. 14. Further, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the law has been reiterated that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; and that the same is based on a misreading/omission 7 to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and furthermore, the view taken by the said Court is a possible one. 16. Resultantly, the Appeal being bereft of any merit or substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna