Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.608 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Shyam Singh S/o Jamunalal Baghel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Karmari, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/accused For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Arvind Dubey, G.A For Respondent : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 21.04.2025 Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.04.23 11:09:36 +0530 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in CIS No.478/2016 whereby, learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 506 and 509 IPC. 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2015, at about 7 a.m at village Karmari, the Respondent/accused has threatened the victim/Complainant (PW-1) to kill her by pouring petrol and with an intention to outrage her modesty, uttered obscene words when she was at her shop. 3. The Respondent/accused has abjured guilt and came to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Respondent/accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated and not examined any witness in his defence. Learned trial Court has, after evaluating the evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge under the Sections as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal has been filed. 4. Shri Dubey submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective. He draws the attention of the Court towards the statements of the victim (PW-1), her husband Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Derharam Dewangan (PW-8) and prays to allow the Appeal. 5. Contrastingly, Shri Sharma supports the judgment impugned and submits that there exists a previous enmity between both the parties as they were running shops adjacent to each other for which, earlier also, various complaints have been lodged by the victim. He, therefore, submits that no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution and as such, the Respondent/accused has been falsely 3 implicated, therefore, the trial Court has been sagacious in acquitting him and prays to dismiss the Appeal. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care. 7. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (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 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 the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 8. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (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 4 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 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. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is explicit that the trial Court found various inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses as also material omissions in the statement of the victim herself as she has admitted in her cross-examination that variations with regard to the incident given by her in the chief examination were not recorded in FIR (Ex.P-1). The finding recorded by the trial Court that after the said incident, the victim was carrying out normal business and routine activity, so, the Respondent/accused has extended threat to her so as to cause her death becomes doubtful. However, in order to 5 attract offence under Section 509 IPC, the facts that there is previous enmity between both the parties, there are major material omissions in the FIR (Ex.P-1) and the Court statement of the victim as also in the statement of Derharam Dewangan (PW-8), who has categorically admitted at para-6 of his cross-examination that when the husband of the Complainant reached the spot, quarrel intensified between both the parties, have to be taken into account. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Priya Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE