1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar, Distt- Raipur, CG v. 1 - Dakeshwar Gupta Alias Dukeshwar Alias Tukeshwar S/o Radheshyam Gupta Aged About 23
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 7 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar, Distt- Raipur, CG ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Dakeshwar Gupta Alias Dukeshwar Alias Tukeshwar S/o Radheshyam Gupta Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village- Bijli, Police Station- Fingeshwar, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant / State : Shri HAPS Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None
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. 7. 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 4 disturb 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. 8. 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 19, 20, 21 and 22 gave following finding - “19. As far as the question of wrongful obstruction is concerned, on this point the complainant Poonam Baghel and her husband Omprakash Baghel 5 have stated that at the time of the incident the accused had blocked their way by stopping his motorcycle in front of their motorcycle, but Omprakash Baghel (PW5) has stated in cross-examination paragraph-6 that the accused was standing and at that time he had taken his motorcycle aside and gone away. He has also accepted the suggestion of the defence in cross-examination paragraph-10 that after the accused had stopped his motorcycle in front of his motorcycle, there was space on the side for him to go, in such a situation the fact of wrongful obstruction being caused is also not proved beyond doubt. Consequently, on the basis of the above complete discussion, the charges under Sections 294, 506/Part-2 and Section 341 IPC against the accused are not proved beyond doubt. 20. Nemichand Patel, Head Constable (PW4) has stated in his statement that he had lodged the First Information Report (P-1) against the accused in the police station Fingeshwar on the basis of the victim's oral complaint. During the investigation, he prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their statements. The complainant had stated that she was abused with caste words, so a notice was issued to her. Caste certificate was seized from the complainant. As the SC/ST Act was applied in the case, therefore When the crime section was added, he sent the case diary to the higher officer for further investigation. This witness has not made any contrary statement in cross-examination. (21) Pushpendra Nayak SDOP (PW4) stated that he had seized the Moped TVS XL CG 04/LQ/4066 in the presence of witnesses when the accused presented it and prepared the seizure memo of Ex.P-9. According to the witness, he had seized the RC book of the said moped in the presence of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-6. He had arrested the accused and informed his family about the arrest. He had written the statements of the witnesses as per their instructions. He had not added or omitted anything from his side in their statement. This witness has accepted the suggestion of the defence in cross-examination that no witness had told him that the accused had abused him by threatening to kill him because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Thus, the statements of the above two witnesses relating to the investigation could not be contradicted in the cross-examination. In such a situation, it is clear that they had investigated the case. But, keeping in view the investigation of the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, there is no need for detailed discussion of the statements of the above police witnesses. 6 22. As far as the question of caste based abuse is concerned, the complainant and her husband have stated that at the time of incident the accused insulted them by using the words Chamara and Chamrin which has been mentioned in the First Information Report also in Ex.P-1. On the contrary, the applicant has accepted the defence's suggestion in cross- examination paragraph-4 that those people do not belong to the Chamar caste and she herself stated that the Satnami people are called so. On this point, the applicant's husband Omprakash Baghel (PW5) has stated in cross- examination paragraph-8 that he cannot tell that the words Chamara, Chamrin are spoken in the common language in the village, which clearly shows that the words Chamara and Chamrin are not uttered to insult and the applicants are not of the Chamra caste. In such a situation, the fact of insulting by abusing on the basis of caste is also not proved beyond doubt, otherwise also the accused is shown to have created a dispute by demanding his balance amount of wages from the applicant and her husband. Thus, the main dispute between the two parties is shown to be based on the transaction of money, i.e. the basis of the incident was not caste-based. Accordingly, the basis of the alleged incident cannot be considered to be caste-based. Consequently, the charge against the accused under sections 3(1) (s). 3(1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is also not proved beyond doubt. Accordingly, the conclusions are given to the conceptual questions” 9. The findings of the learned trial Court appear to be based on a proper and judicious appreciation of the evidence available on record. There is no apparent error in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference. This Court is unable to take a different view from that of the view taken by the learned trial Court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.08.06 10:48:12 +0530
Arguments
({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 23/07/2025 This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’) against the judgment dated 09/03/2023 passed in Special Criminal Case No.21/2022 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 294, 506-II and Section 341 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (s), 3 (1) (r) of the Special Act. 2 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant-Poonam Baghel lodged an oral report in police station–Fingeshwar on 15/02/2022 inter alia stating that on 14/02/2022, she along with her husband and two children were returning on motor cycle. At about 3:30 PM, ahead Shani Temple, Chaitra turn, Rajim- Fingeshwar main road, the respondent kept his motor cycle in front of the motor cycle of her husband, obstructed them and used filthy language and also gave threat of assault and dire consequences. Being frightened, she along with her husband came home. Since they were filthily abused in the name of caste, she and her husband felt bad. The incident was informed to Umendra Dhruv and Ramji Khilware. On the basis of such report, First Information Report (Ex.P/1) was registered. Investigation was set on motion, spot map was prepared and statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The respondent was charged as stated above. He denied charges and claimed trial. Statement of the respondent under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 3. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, acquitted the respondents of all the charges which led to filing of this appeal. 4. Shri H.A.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant /State argues that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is erroneous, contrary to the evidence and bad in law. He submits that the statement of the witness is quite categorical, vividly describing the happening of the incident which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the respondents may be convicted for the aforesaid offence and impose with adequate sentence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, 5. 6. (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 -