High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18260-DB NAFR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.25 10:37:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 20 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ...Applicant versus 1 - Manendra Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Sinchayee Colony Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa, C.G. 2 - Sanjay Dewangan S/o Tikaram Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o Purani Basti, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 3 - Awadhesh Dubey S/o Tulesh Dubey Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Kanya Shala, Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 4 - Dharmendra Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Sinchayee Colony Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa, C.G. 5 - Satvindar Singh @ Bittu S/o Gurudit Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Simbal Camp Tekari, Police Station Meer Saheb, District Jammu And Kashmir (J And K) 6 - Rajeev @ Rajjan Tiwari S/o Ram Niwas Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pondi, Police Station Nagaud, District Satna, M.P. 7 - Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbari S/o Abdul Habib Aged About 62 Years R/o 3919 Near Jagat Cinema, Urdu Bazar Delhi, Police Station Jama Masjid, Delhi. 2 8 - Peer Arshid @ Arshad @ Aashu S/o Peer Gyasuddin Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Noor Masjid, Nurkhwajabag, Baramula, Police Station Baramula, District Jammu And Kashmir, (J & K) ... Respondents For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State on I.A.No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 282 days in filing the appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. Also heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that Pakistani intelligence agent ISI got the accounts of several persons opened in different banks through accused/respondents No. 3 and 6 i.e. Awadhesh Dubey and Rajeev @ Rajjan Tiwari and money was deposited in these accounts by the Pakistani agent while opening these accounts. The accused/respondents No. 3 and & 6 i.e. Awadhesh Dubey and Rajjan 3 Tiwari took alongwith them accused/respondents Manendra Yadav, Sanjay Dewangan & Dharmendra Yadav and they opened their own accounts and accounts of other persons. After opening these accounts, money deposited by Pakistani agents was received and after deducting the commission, this amount was again given to the people specified by Pakistani party. On the basis of information given by the complainant, an FIR was registered vide Crime No. 288/2017 for offence under Sections 121-A/34, 122/34, 123/34, 120-B, 201/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 17, 38(2), 39(1) and 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur. On the aforesaid complaint lodged by the complainant, the FIR vide Crime No. 288/2017 was registered against the accused / respondents herein for offence under Sections 121-A/34, 122/34, 123/34, 120-B, 201/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 17, 38(2), 39(1) and 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 6. During the course of investigation, the spot map was prepared, statement of the complainant was recorded and the accused/respondents were taken into custody. The complainant‘s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The case diary statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Court. The charge under Sections 121-A/34, 122/34, 123/34, 120-B, 201/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 17, 38(2), 39(1) and 39(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was framed against the accused/respondents. 4 The prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses in support of its case. Despite the fact that the investigating officer as well as other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Special Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.02.2024, has acquitted the accused/respondents from all the charges. Hence, this petition for grant of leave to appeal. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for appellant / State submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. Further, mere discrepancy in the statement of the witness is not a sufficient ground to acquit the accused / respondents, wherein the witness categorically deposed regarding occurrence of crime. Learned Special Court has failed to appreciate that the names of the present accused/respondents are mentioned in the memorandum statements of co-accused persons as one of the accused involved in the commission of offence. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses leave no doubt about the commission of the alleged offences. He further submits that learned Special Court has also failed to 5 appreciate that in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statements made by co-accused persons who were tried jointly for the same offence may be taken into consideration by the court as against the present respondents and has further failed to consider that on the basis of disclosure statements made by the present respondents, seizures have made. Also, the prosecution has tendered sufficient and reliable evidence proving the confessional statement of all co-accused persons wherein the involvement of the present respondents in the commission of offence is mentioned. He also submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court against the accused / respondents No.1 to 8 goes to show that they were involved in cross funding and indulged in anti-national activities and learned Special Court misread the evidence on record and acquitted the accused / respondents No.1 to 8 by giving the benefit of doubt though there is cogent evidence against them. As such, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. We have perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel and also perusing the evidence available on record, we allow the application for leave to appeal under Section 419(1) of the Bharatiya
Decision
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Order accordingly. 10. Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 11. The CrMP is disposed of accordingly. 12. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 6 13. Let a bailable warrant for a sum of Rs.5000/- each be issued against the accused / respondents No.1 to 8 for their appearance before this Court on 30th June, 2025 through concerned Superintendent of Police. 14. Paper book has already been prepared. 15. List this matter on 30th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Bablu