High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.08.07 10:39:16 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 342 of 2025 NAFR 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Pipariaya District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Dharamraj Chandrakar S/o Sitaram Chandrakar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kuan, Thana, Pipariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sitaram Chandrakar S/o Budhram Chandrakar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kuan, Thana, Pipariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kunjan Bai W/o Sitaram Chandrakar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kuan, Thana, Pipariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
“Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in a number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be sustained. 13. In the case of M.C.Ali and anr. v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb 5 the findings of acquittal and placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in which it has been held as under - 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 14. Learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the evidence available on record in respect of all the offences which has been charged against the respondent and after analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, in paragraph 52, 53 and 54 gave following finding:- “53. Thus, the statements of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses do not establish that the accused subjected the deceased, Rajni Chandrakar, to physical or mental cruelty. 6 54. Based on the evidence brought on record during the course of investigation, it is not proved that between 09.03.2019 and 15.10.2021, the accused physically or mentally harassed the deceased Rajni Chandrakar at Village Kuan, Police Station Pipariya, or abetted her to commit suicide. Consequently, the allegation that Rajni Chandrakar consumed poison and committed suicide due to such harassment remains unsubstantiated.
Arguments
: Mr. HAPS Bhatia, PL For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This appeal under section 419 (4) of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District- Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) in Sessions case no. 35/2022 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 (for short IPC). 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Rajni Chandrakar was 2 married to respondent No.1 Dharamraj Chandrakar and was the daughter-in-law of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The allegation against the respondents is that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison on 15.10.2021, as a result of the physical and mental cruelty allegedly inflicted upon her by the respondents during the period from 09.03.2019 to 15.10.2021. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 solemnized marriage with the deceased by eloping with her to Raipur. The death intimation (Ex. P/18) was received from the District Hospital, Kabirdham (C.G.), at the Police Assistance Centre, District Hospital–Kawardha. Pursuant thereto, merg intimation No. 02/2021 (Ex. P/19) was recorded by Head Constable Anoop Chandravanshi. Subsequently, an inquest (Ex. P/5) was conducted, and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Purushottam Singh Rajput conducted the autopsy on 15.10.2021 and issued the post-mortem report (Ex. P/11). Thereafter, merg No. 48/2021 (Ex. P/17) was registered at Police Station Pipariya. A spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/21, and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination. Based on the merg inquiry, FSL report, post-mortem report, and other material collected during investigation, an FIR in Crime No. 202/2022 was registered on 01.06.2022 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC vide Ex. P/12. 6. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court, which subsequently committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all allegations, claimed innocence, and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 3 8. On due appreciation, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused (respondents herein) on the aforesaid offences. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the acquittal of the respondents is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and bad in law. He further contends that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and established the element of "instigation" as defined under Section 107 of IPC. Accordingly, the respondents ought to have been convicted under Section 306 of IPC. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities and warrants interference by this Court. The appellant/State, therefore, prays that the accused/respondents be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is an unexplained delay of approximately one year in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s case. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 himself took the deceased to the hospital in an attempt to save her life, which clearly indicates that there was no instigation on his part. The allegations levelled against the respondents are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, and have been duly considered and disbelieved by the learned trial Court. The trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of evidence, has recorded a reasoned and well-merited finding of acquittal. He further contends that the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not satisfied, as there is no evidence of continuous or proximate instigation which drove the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant interference and deserve to be upheld. To bolster his submission he placed reliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of 4 Chhattisgrah reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Laxmi Das Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 120. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461 observed that an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. It has been held in paragraph 9 as under -
Decision
55. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.” 15. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court. 16. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the statements of PW-1 Dileep Chandravanshi, PW-2 Kaushalya Bai, PW-3 Sarita Chandravanshi, and PW-4 Anil Chandravanshi, all of whom are relatives of the deceased. Therefore, their testimonies are required to be scrutinized with due care and caution. A perusal of their statements reveals that the marriage between respondent No.1 and the deceased was solemnized after elopement from her parental home. It further appears from their depositions that respondent No.1 used to physically assault the deceased, and respondents No.2 and 3 also harassed her mentally. The allegations levelled were general in nature and primarily pertained to domestic discord. 17. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the prosecution do not constitute "abetment" as defined under Section 107 of IPC. It was also observed that, despite the alleged 7 physical and mental harassment, no complaint was ever lodged to the police or brought to the notice of the society, nor was any social gathering convened to address the grievance. Furthermore, the learned trial Court took note of the fact that the FIR was lodged nearly one year after the initial merg intimation. The defence taken by the respondents was that the deceased suspected an illicit relationship between respondent No.1 and one Sarita, and she had allegedly threatened Sarita to sever all ties with respondent No.1, failing which she would commit suicide. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible, the one which favours the accused must be preferred. In light of the applicable legal position and the judgment relied upon, this Court is of the view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view, which does not warrant any interference in appellate jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant/State fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari