1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Deepak Singh S/o Anand Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bhurugiya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 110 of 2022 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Appellant versus 1 - Deepak Singh S/o Anand Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bhurugiya, Tahsil Mahuda, Police Station Mahuda, District Dhanbad Jharkhand. 2 - Umesh Yadav S/o Satyanarayan Yadav, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Bhurugiya, Tahsil Mahuda, Police Station Mahuda, District Dhanbad Jharkhand. ... Respondents For Applicant/Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18-03-2025 1. Present is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 05-08-2021 passed by the learned V th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.170/2021 whereby the respondent/accused persons have been acquitted from the Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ajay Mishra PW-1 was having motor body workshop at Transport Nagar, Raipur. On 21-11-2020 at about 07:30 a.m. when he went to tea stall the driver and conductor of Truck No.JH 09AS 8561 also came there who informed that they caught thieves and out of which two have fled away and they could hold there one. When the complainant saw him who was sitting in the body of the truck having injuries on both of his hands. When he asked to sent him in police custody they denied and stated that they will do whatever they want to do. After some some the person who was sitting in the truck has died and then the conductor and driver fled away from the place, thereafter, he informed the police through Dial 112 and then the offence has been registered. In the postmortem conducted by Doctor Arun Kumar Jaswani PW-7, the injuries found on the body of the deceased and in the postmortem report Ex.-P/37 the Doctor has opined that provisional cause of death is Head Injury with blunt trauma to chest and the manner of death is homicidal. Final opinion to be given by the doctor only after of arrival of chemical analysis report to the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Pt. JNMMC, Raipur (C.G.). During the investigation the respondent/accused persons were arrested. The accused persons were put to test identification parade. Their blood stained clothes were seized and after obtaining FSL report and completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents/accused persons and ultimately they put to face the trial of the case. 3 3. After completion of the trial and hearing them the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons from the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC which is under challenge in the present CRMP. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that there are sufficient material against the respondents/accused persons to convict them in the offence in question. The accused persons were duly identified by Ajay Mishra PW-1 who saw the deceased in the truck of respondents/accused persons. From the possession of the respondents/accused persons their blood stained clothes have been seized and in the FSL report the blood stained has been found in their clothes. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to connect respondent/accused persons for the offence in question. Yet the learned trial Court has acquitted them holding that there is no evidence against them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record of the case. 6. PW-1 Ajay Mishra who is the complainant in the case, has stated in his evidence that when he saw the deceased in the truck of respondents/accused persons and asked him as to why he was sitting there, he replied that the public has beaten him on apprehension that he is committing theft and he is a thief. He provided a cup of tea and water to him and when he felt that his condition is deteriorating he informed the police. He denied that the respondents/accused persons have informed him that they caught a thief and hold him. The learned trial 4 Court has considered that the decease was sitting in the body of the truck and it was open place. The learned trial Court has further considered that the deceased had informed that the public has beaten him and the said conversation between the deceased and PW-1 Ajay Mishra which is in the form of oral dying declaration. there is no any allegation against the present respondents/accused persons that they have committed assault to the deceased rather he specifically stated that the deceased has not made any statement against the present respondents/accused persons. Further, the learned trial Court has also considered that after 1-2 months of the date of incident the police has called him and after showing the photographs of the accused persons they asked to identify them and therefore, the identification memo Ex.- P/7 itself is doubtful for the reason that the police has already shown the photographs of the accused persons to the witness PW-1 Ajay Mishra. 7. Learned trial Court has further considered that only blood stains found on the T-shirt of respondent/accused Deepak Singh, but no blood group is found there and which alone cannot be considered to be the sufficient evidence against the respondent/accused persons. Considering the overall evidence available in the case, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused persons. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under; 5 "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 9. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 10. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused persons after giving them the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the 6 appellant/State and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in their court evidence makes the prosecution case suspicious and is not credible. 11. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Jafarudheen (supra) and Kistoora Ram (supra) that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis by the evidence laid by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion on the finding of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 12. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused persons/respondents is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to file acquittal appeal as well as acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil