State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Ritesh @ Chhotu S/o Shankar Mandavi, Aged 19 Years R/o Mahavir Para
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:41079-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.351 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ritesh @ Chhotu S/o Shankar Mandavi, Aged 19 Years R/o Mahavir Para, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Simpi Thakur S/o Ramesh Singh Thakur Aged 24 Years R/o Mahavir Para, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Swaroop Singh @ Rimpi Thakur S/o Ramesh Singh Thakur Aged 24 Years R/o Mahavir Para, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nishant @ Bablu S/o Shankar Mandavi Aged 23 Years R/o Mahavir Para, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Shabir Khan S/o Jumman Khan Aged 23 Years R/o Budhwari Para, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Manish Soni S/o Parmanand Soni Aged 23 Years R/o Nayapara, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.6 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer Shri Kishan Kumar, Advocate Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 None, though served. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 14/08/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.14 17:35:57 +0530 2 legality and propriety of the judgment dated 15.09.2017, passed by the Additional Judge, Dongargarh to the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.20/2012, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of IPC. 2) According to the prosecution, a report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Rajesh Singh before the Police Station-Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon on 16.09.2012, alleging inter alia, that on 15.09.2012 at about 11.30 PM, he went to Dongargarh for Devi Darshan along with his mother, brother-Rishi and servant-Devharan, where, all of a sudden, three accused persons came on a motorcycle and started arguing with his brother-Rishi and servant-Devharan and one of them started assaulting his brother with hands and also with the aid of belt and when he intervened the matter, he was also assaulted by him with the aid of belt, as a result of which, he sustained certain injuries near his right eye and blood was oozing. It is alleged further that they have snatched a golden chain worth Rs.1,10,000/- and a golden locket worth Rs.6,000/-, total amounting to Rs.1,16,000/- and then fled away by their motorcycle and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against three unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 of IPC and, after completion of investigation, the respondents have been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 395 of IPC. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the complainant-Rajesh 3 Singh was examined as PW-1, but, it reveals from paragraph-6 of his testimony, that on the said fateful day, in fact, six persons had come, who were identified by his brother-Rishi and, it appears further that only thereafter, they lodged the alleged report. Though, it was stated as such by him that his said brother-Rishi had identified them, but, his brother-Rishi (PW-3) has, however, stated that he does not know the accused persons. That apart, even the Investigating Officer, namely, T.S. Paikra (PW-5), in his evidence has stated that the test identification parade of the respondents were not carried out before any of the competent officer. 4) It is to be seen further that, although it was stated by Rajesh Singh (PW-1) in his alleged report (Ex.P-1) that he and his brother-Rishi, both, were assaulted by one of the accused persons with the aid of belt, but, from perusal of the record, it appears that apart from the belt, a sword along with golden chain were found to be recovered from one of the accused persons, namely, Shabbir Khan, the Respondent No.5 herein, vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3) in presence of said Rajesh and his brother-Rishi. It is to be noted here further, as depicted from the alleged report (Ex.P-1), that on the said fateful day, a golden locket was also snatched by the accused persons, but in his (PW-1) statement, he, however, has not stated anywhere that a golden locket was snatched by anyone of them. That apart, although it was stated by him that when they were assaulting his brother-Rishi, he intervened the matter, but, the statement of his mother-Sunita Devi (PW-4) would, however, reveal the fact that her 4 son-Rishi has, in fact, tried to escape his brother i.e. Rajesh. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon their testimonies. 5) Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from the testimony of the complainant’s brother-Rishi (PW-3), particularly paragraph-4 of his cross-examination, that neither the golden chain, nor the locket was snatched by the accused persons and, it appears further from his testimony that the alleged golden chain and the locket was, in fact, lying on the spot and, was given to them by the concerned police authorities on the next day morning. In view of such circumstances, though golden chain was shown to be recovered from the Respondent No.5-Shabbir Khan vide Ex.P-3 in his presence, but, in view of his said version, it cannot be relied upon. In so far as the statement of his servant, Devharan (PW-2), is concerned, he, however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution version. 6) In view of the aforesaid background and particularly, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it would be difficult to hold that the respondents are involved for the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-SD/D (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane