Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.638 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Govind Tiwari S/o Late Asharam Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Atarmara, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kailash Tiwari S/o Asharam Tiwari Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Atarmara, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.07.25 10:51:34 +0530
Legal Reasoning
12. It is well settled that when two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to the accused should be taken. {See: Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, [(2006) 10 SCC 617]} & Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakandi reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Priya Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE
Arguments
For Appellant/State : Shri Dilman Rathi Minj, G.A. For Respondents : Smt Shriya Jaiswal appears on behalf of Smt Anubhuti Marhas, Advocates. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 23.07.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.02.2019 passed by the JMFC, Raipur, Rajim, District Gariyaband in Criminal Case No.165/2015 whereby, the Respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 427/34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) has made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) at PS Panduka, District Gariyaband stating that on the date of incident i.e. 03.06.2014 at about 9.00 pm, the Respondents/Accused have tried to break the lock and cause damage to his shop and and were roaming in the village carrying iron rod and club. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, after preliminary enquiry, on 26.12.2014, FIR (Ex.P-5) bearing No.48/2014 was registered for the offence under Section 447 & 427/34, crime details form has been prepared (Ex.P-2), photograph of the place of incident (Article-1) was seized (Ex.P-3), Panchanama was prepared (Ex.P-4) and the statements of witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. During the trial, the Respondents/accused have denied the charges and claimed false implication. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents (ExP-1 to 3 P-7) and Article A-1. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the Respondents/accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated and pleaded innocence. Respondent No.1-Govind Tiwari has examined himself as defence witness (DW-1) and has taken specific defence that he was having previous enmity with Harish Agrawal, (PW-7), an Advocate and on his instigation, Complainant Tikam Sinha (PW-1) has filed a false complaint against them as earlier in the year 1996, Harish Agrawal (PW-7) along with other friends, has burnt his house and in the said case, he was also sent to jail. 4. After evaluation of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the Respondents/accused as stated above. Hence, this Appeal. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the State/Appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in its proper perspective and has also not at all appreciated the evidence of Narendra Kumar Dewangan (PW-2), the eye-witness, who has categorically supported the case of the prosecution and prays to allow the Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents/accused supported the judgment impugned while submitting that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with utmost circumspection. 4 8. The case of the prosecution is initiated by a written complaint (Ex.P-1) filed on 03.06.2014 by Complainant Teekam Sahu (PW-1) which itself shows that no fact with regard to any loss caused to Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) was mentioned and the only allegation which was made therein was that the Respondents/accused were roaming in the village carrying iron rod and club trying to break up the lock of the Complainant’s shop and also committed some vandalization. The offence under Section 427 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and there are no averments that the Respondents/accused have entered into the property of Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1). After enquiry of more than 6 months, only on 26.12.2014, PS Panduka has registered the offence under Section 447 IPC, which is a cognizable offence along with 427/34 IPC and there was no averment in the FIR (Ex.P-5) that in any manner, the Respondents/accused have trespassed into the property of Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1). When a specific query was put to learned Counsel for the State with regard to the same, he fairly admits that there are no such averments available on record and the trial Court has not framed any charge to this effect and the offence for which, charge has been framed by the trial Court under Section 427/34 IPC is a non-cognizable one. The necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 447 IPC thus seem to be lacking and the other offence for which, the prosecution has been conducted by the State is a non-cognizable offence. Though the said offence is a non-cognizable one but the State has not challenged the aforesaid particulars of the offence and further, FIR (Ex.P-5) has also 5 been lodged belatedly i.e. after 6 months of the enquiry. If the State has taken 6 months’ time for investigation with regard to such kind of offence, then it would be the fundamental right of the accused to seek speedy investigation for a fair trial. Nevertheless, when the trial is not conducted in a fair and expeditious manner, then the whole investigation appears shady. 9. Albeit in the FIR (Ex.P-5), names of certain eye-witnesses particularly Namdev, Mohan and Tiwari were mentioned but during investigation, those names have not been enlisted in the charge sheet and they were not arrayed as witnesses of the prosecution while filing the charge sheet. Even during the enquiry (Ex.D-3) though Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) has named the persons who have witnessed the incident, but no enquiry against Namdev, Mohan and Tiwari on whom the Respondents/accused have made a complaint of roaming on the night of the incident, was made. For the same incident, the police has also filed a preventive action (Ex.D-2) and registered an offence vide istigaasha No.187/2014 under Sections, 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C though on the same day of the incident, as per the prosecution case, a written complaint has been filed on the basis of which, the police has later on registered FIR. During the enquiry (Ex.D-3), the first person who has been examined by the enquiry officer was Harish Agrawal (PW-7) and the Respondents have taken a specific defence that on his (Harish Agrawal) instigation, Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) has made a false complaint against them. In the cross-examination, at para-18, Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) has categorically admitted 6 that he has never made any written complaint at PS Panduka. In such circumstances, the foundation of written complaint (Ex.P-1) by which, the case of the prosecution was initiated, itself becomes doubtful and the prosecution has not re-examined the Complainant in this regard. 10. Manish Sinha (PW-6), who was also named in the written complaint (Ex.P-1) as an eye-witness to the incident, has categorically deposed that at the time of incident, it was dark in the night and he also admitted the fact that he has seen the incident from a distance of 100 meters and further admitted that due to darkness, the accused persons could not be identified. He admits at para-9 of his cross-examination that immediately after seeing the incident, he has not informed the same to any one. Narendra Kuamr Dewangan (PW-2) has deposed that he alone was present at the time of incident when the Respondents/accused were causing damage to the tin sheet of Complainant Teekam Sinha’s (PW-1) shop by a club. 11. Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) has mentioned the names of various persons in his written complaint (Ex.P-1), therefore, the version of Narendra Kumar Dewangan (PW-2) contradicting the said fact by stating that he was alone at the time of the incident has lost its value. As the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the Respondents/accused are the persons who have caused damage to the shop of Complainant Teekam Sinha (PW-1) on the date of the incident and since there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the other witnesses have reached the spot only after the incident, therefore, on 7 such minute examination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one.