Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.01.13 14:40:23 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 123 of 2015 Judgment Reserved on 07.01.2025 Judgment Delivered on 13.01.2025 • Prisidiyus Tigga, S/o Alvis Tigga, aged about 55 Years, R/o Ajrma, Police Station Jainagar, Civil and Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Sunil Bharti, S/o Shivkumar, aged about 30 Years, R/o Mahuapara, Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Priyanka Ekka, W/o Basant Benidik, aged about 25 Years, R/o Near Kisan Rice Mill, Ambikapur, Police Station and Post Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Nitesh Pardeshi, S/o Anand, aged about 30 Years, R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, Police Station and Post Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station In-Charge Surajpur, Civil and Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Adityadhar Diwan, Advocates. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C A V Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 2 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant arises out of the judgment dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989)(for short, 'the Act, 1989'), Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. in Special Sessions Case No.80/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.1 to 3 herein of the charges under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in between the period from 17.08.2012 at 12:00 pm to 21.08.2012 at 11:00 pm, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 committed the murder of Amardeep Ekka, a member of Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter called as 'deceased') by strangulation. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in order to conceal the evidence, threw the dead body of deceased and mobile in the red river and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2012, PW-6 Beer Singh, Sarpanch of the village, informed the police station Surajpur that when children of the village had gone to river bank to graze cattle, they found a dead body of unknown person lying in the river in front of SECL Vishrampur Filter Plant, which was mutilated by wild animals. Upon receiving the said information, he (PW-6) along with Mutur Singh, Sujaan Singh, Samay Lal and Pransay went to the spot and found a purse near the dead body containing Police ID Card which belongs to Amardeep Tigga. On the basis of said information, Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-9) and Merg Intimation (Ex.P-15) were 3 recorded. FIR (Ex.P-23) was registered against the unknown person. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Shashi Tirkey, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-14. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to throttling of neck and nature of death of deceased was homicidal. During investigation, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were taken into custody. Memorandum statement of the respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti was recorded vide Ex.P-18, consequent to which, one Pulsar motorcycle and wing company mobile were seized vide Ex.P-20. Memorandum statement of respondent No.2 Priyanka Ekka was recorded vide Ex.P- 19, consequent to which, one ATM card of deceased, her clothes and two mobile phones (Karbon and Nokia company) were seized vide Ex.P-21. Memorandum statement of respondent No.3 Nitesh Pardeshi was recorded vide Ex.P-17, pursuant to which, one Onida Company mobile was seized vide Ex.P-22. 3. After due investigation, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the aforesaid offences. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 27 4 documents. However, the accused persons in support of their defence has examined none, but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein of said charges leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein of said charges by recording perverse findings. He would further submit that PW-1 Prisidiyus Tigga, father of the deceased, has stated that respondent No.2 Priyanka Ekka was having illicit relations with the deceased and when deceased took respondent No.2 Priyanka for medical treatment, which got respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti annoyed and for this reason, in order to eliminate the deceased, respondent No. 1 Sunil Bharti with the help of other co-accused persons, committed the aforesaid offence and despite there being clinching evidence against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 showing their direct involvement in the crime in question, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma and Anr. vs State1. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the 1 2024 Law Suit (SC) 938 5 statements of the prosecution witnesses with respect to alleged crime in question. He would also submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive of the offence and that no sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the accused persons with the crime in question. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the State has supported the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons for the aforesaid offences? 12. PW-1 Prisidiyus Tigga, father of the deceased, has stated that relations between his son (deceased) and respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti were good and they were working in the same department. He has further stated that before the incident, respondent No.2 Priyanka had 6 told his son (deceased) to take her to a doctor for treatment. He has also stated that he does not know anything about the relationship between respondent No.2 Priyanka and deceased. He has also stated that one month prior to the incident, respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti had told him to make his son (deceased) understand as he used to roam with a girl, but he (accused-Sunil) did not tell him the name of the girl. He has also stated that at the time of marriage of deceased, respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti had brought respondent No.2 Priyanka. He has also stated that one month before the incident, her wife and daughter-in-law had received an unknown call informing that deceased has illicit relations with respondent No.2 Priyanka and when this witness asked the deceased in this regard, he did not tell him anything. He has also stated that deceased told him that there was a dispute between him and respondent No.1 Sunil Bharti, but he did not disclose the reason. He has denied that he had told the police that respondent No.1 Sunil told him the name of girl with whom deceased was having illicit relations. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not tell the police that his son (deceased) had informed him that there was a relationship between accused-Sunil & Priyanka. 13. PW-2 Alka Tigga, wife of the deceased, has stated that deceased had told her that his relation with accused-Priyanka as brother like. She has further stated that one month before the incident, accused-Sunil Bharti met her and told her that accused-Priyanka wants to talk to her. Thereafter, accused-Sunil and Priyanka came to her house and told her that accused-Priyanka's husband wants to commit suicide and told her (PW-2) to call Priyanka's husband and told him that there is no 7 relationship between the deceased and respondent No.2 Priyanka. She has further stated that whatever accused-Sunil told her to say, she said to the husband of the accused-Priyanka. She has also stated that accused-Sunil and Priyanaka had threatened her to make her husband (deceased) understand. However, on the contrary, in cross- examination, she admitted that in police statement (Ex.D-1), she did not tell the police about the illicit relations of her husband (deceased) with accused-Priyanka. She further admitted that she told the police that accused-Sunil took her to the house of accused-Priyanka. This apart, PW-13 Shashikala Tigga, sister of the deceased, in her cross- examination, admitted that her father (PW-1) did not lodge any report with regard to the threat given by the accused persons in the police station. 14. Though PW-6 Beer Singh, Sarpanch of the village, has admitted his signatures on the documents {Ex. P-9 (Dehati Nalishi), Exs.P-10 & P-11 (spot maps), Ex.P-12 (Search Panchnama) & Ex.P-13 (Seizure Memo)}, but further admitted that during search proceedings, no object was recovered from the spot. 15. Thus, from the evidence of above witnesses, it appears that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other with respect to the alleged incident. Further, PW-13 Shashikala Tigga, sister of the deceased, in her cross-examination, admitted that her father (PW-1 Prisidiyus tigga) did not lodge any report with regard to the threat given by the accused persons in the police station. Furthermore, witnesses to memorandum and seizure, namely, PW-10 Arun Kumar 8 Tigga and PW-11 Dilip have also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and that no such incriminating articles were seized from the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that had PW-1 Prisidiyus Tigga been received any threat from the accused persons, then he would have definitely informed the same to the police station as he was also a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, but he did not do so. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion, howsoever, strong, cannot take place in evidence. 16. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons are the perpetrators of the crime in question and further held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any motive of the accused persons to commit murder of deceased and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the said charges on the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is of no help to the counsel for the appellant. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of 9 considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein of the aforesaid charges is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh