Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 39 of 2016 Smt. Rajni Jagannath, W/o Late Shri K. Jagannath, Aged About 50 Years, R/o C.S.E.B. Colony, N B/41, Korba, P.S. City Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Versus ---- Appellant 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali Chowki, C.S.E.B., District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2. Kishor Singhane S/o E.S. Bhoi Aged About 41 Years R/o 130 Samanvaya Nagar, Khajurikala Bhopal District Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. ---- Respondents For Appellant For Res. Nos. 1 For Res. No.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate. Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. None. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey 15.01.2025 (Judgment on Board) 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 16.11.2015 passed 2 in Sessions Trial No.20/2011 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Korba (C.G.), whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent 2 herein from the charges punishable under Sections 306, 420, 465, 466 and 468 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.02.2010, S.H.O., C.S.E.B., Thana Kotwali, Korba, received an information to the effect that deceased K. Jagannath has committed suicide by hanging in Qtr. No.N.B./41, CSEB Colony. After receiving the said information, police personnel proceeded to the scene of incident and after preparing the inquest, dead body of deceased K. Jagannath was sent for postmortem to Govt. Hospital and one suicidal note was also seized from the spot. The investigation agency in order to match the handwriting of the deceased, obtained/seized the documents/letters written by the deceased from his wife Rajani Jagannath for sending the same to FSL., Raipur so as to enable the prosecution to lodge merg on the basis of suicidal letter. During investigation, after having found the accused/respondent No.2 accountable for the crime, registered an FIR (Ex.P/32) against him under Section 306 of IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Judge has framed the charge under Sections 306, 420, 465, 466 and 468 against the accused/respondent No.2. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution 3 has examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent No.2 was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the accused/respondent herein as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is not only erroneous but also based on assumption and ill founded reasons. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has seized suicidal letter of the deceased which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused/respondent but the learned trail Court did not consider this evidence in its true perspective and did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly & acquitted the accused/respondent. Learned counsel also submits that it is apparent from the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses that forgery has been committed by the accused/respondent, as such, if the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused/respondent then offence under Sections 420, 465, 466 and 468 are definitely made out against the 4 accused/respondent and he is thus liable to be convicted but the learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly and on technical ground acquitted him. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal being not sustainable is liable to be set aside and the accused/respondent No.2 is liable to be convicted. Learned State counsel also supported the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of accused/respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is apparent from the record of learned trial Court that charges under Sections 306, 420, 465, 466 and 468 were framed against the accused/respondent and prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to substantiate its case and exhibited 36 documents and three articles. The defence also exhibited documents (Ex.D/1 to D/6). 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The learned trial Court having minutely appreciated statement of all the witnesses recorded its finding that ingredients of Section 107 and fraud are missing in this case and thus acquitted the accused/respondent from the offence under Sections 306, 420, 465, 466 and 468 of IPC. 11. The abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC. 5 So as to make-out a case of abetment it is necessary to prove that spurring and goading to commit suicide. For constituting the abetment the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the offence. In the case of Mahendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P., 1996 Cr.L.J. (1) 894, the Apex Court has laid down that abetment means that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing or secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids by any act. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. 12. The learned trial Court after appreciation of statement of Rajni Jagannath (PW/1) recorded its finding that the testimony of this witness is not reliable and the whole prosecution story was suspicious & thus held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It transpires from the evidence of Rajni Jagannath (PW/1) that the dispute was of civil in nature and the deceased had alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance but instead of availing the same, he chose to take such extreme step. A person can abet the commission of offence in any of the three grounds set-out in Section 107, 6 IPC. In the present case the act of the accused does not fall in any category set out in Section 107 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 107 IPC is completely missing in this case and that is what exactly recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- "(I) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; 7 (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court." 14. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned trial court in acquitting the accused/respondent No.2 of the charge levelled against him by extending benefit of doubt, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant is bereft of any substance and, 8 therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.01.25 14:22:09 +0530