High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38405 NAFR PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.08.05 16:59:46 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 644 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - Ramendra Shukla S/o Prayag Narayan Shukla Aged About 51 Years R/o Brahmanpara, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Shishir Shukla S/o Upendra Shukla Aged About 34 Years R/o Brahmanpara, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, GA For Respondents : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 04/08/2025 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.395/2011, whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 448, 506-II and 427 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.2010 at around 6 am, at Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, the accused persons entered the restaurant of the complainant- Ramavtar Agrawal (PW-1) and abused him using filthy language, threatened to kill him and caused damage to the complainant’s property, thereby causing mischief. On the date of the incident, the complainant filed a written complaint (Ex-P/1) that the respondents/accused persons along with 15-20 others had come to the complainant’s hotel. Although in his favour the District Judge, Ambikapur has passed an order concerning the possession of the property not being proved during the trial. Based on such information, on 29.07.2010, after an enquiry, FIR No.198/2010 was registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, which was not proved. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex-P/2. Panchanama for the loss was prepared vide Ex-P/3, estimating the loss to be Rs. 50–60. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3 3. During the course of trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents vide Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/7. The respondents/accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case, however, they did not adduce any defence evidence. 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. Hence this Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and thus, prays to allow the Appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons would support the impugned judgment, which is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the statement of the complainant- Ramavtar Agrawal (PW-1), it is explicit that there was a civil dispute regarding the property between the respondents/accused persons and the complainant, for which a civil suit was also pending. The complainant further admitted that he had earlier filed a complaint against the accused persons for assault and also admitted that the owners of the said property are the accused persons and the dispute was related to eviction of the said property. The complainant 4 (PW-1) deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. on 11.07.2010, at about 6 am, the respondents/accused persons along with 15-20 others, reached at the hotel, which was operating in a tent and took away goods in a tractor and a 407 vehicle bearing Registration No.CG15 AC 0139. When he and his son protested against this action, the accused persons abused the complainant in filthy language, insulting his mother and sister and threatened to kill him; therefore, he lodged a written complaint vide Ex-P/1. 9. The complainant, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that there is no averment of abuse using filthy language or any threat that has been extended by the respondents/accused in the written complaint filed by him vide Ex-P/1. Therefore, it appears that the complainant has exaggerated this aspect of his version in his Court statement. 10.The complainant’s own son, Rajesh Kumar Agrawal (PW-3) has not supported the version of his father PW-1 and deposed that he did not witness the incident, however, as it was narrated by his father, he has deposed accordingly. Other witnesses, Sehdev Chouhan (PW-2), Dhaneshwar (PW-4) and Jalandhar (PW-5) have not stated anything against the accused persons and turned hostile and thereafter, nothing has been elicited from their statements. Even the prosecution has not proved the FIR, which has been registered in pursuance of the written complaint (Ex-P/1). 11.In the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 5 that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 12.Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents/accused. Therefore, this Court does not find any substantial reason to take a different view of the matter and the finding arrived by the trial Court is a possible one and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges. Moreover, it is equally 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]. 13.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Judge (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka