Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Manish @ Annu And Ors on 10 August, 2023
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 372 of 2010
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station:
Mungeli, District: Bilaspur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Manish @ Annu, S/o Basant Soni, aged about 32 years
2. Anish @ Tinku, S/o Dhruv Kumar Soni, aged about 30 years
3. Nitesh @ Golu, S/o Dhruv Kumar Soni, aged about 27 years
4. Ritesh @ Pintu, S/o Dhruv Kumar Soni, aged about 24 years
5. Sudesh @ Panchu, S/o Nankeen Soni, aged about 43 years
6. Kamlesh @ Ballu, S/o Shiri Sakharam Soni, aged about 43 years
7. Hemant Soni, S/o Sukhnath Soni, aged about 33 years
8. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o Ramji Soni, aged about 56 years
9. Niraj @ Pattu, S/o Shri Kamal Narayan Soni, aged about 25 years
10.Raja @ Vikas, S/o Suresh Soni, aged about 26 years
11.Vikash Soni, S/o Ram Murat Soni, aged about 33 years
12.Dinanath @ Dinu Soni, S/o Shri Suraj Soni, aged about 38 years
13. Monu @ Abhishek Soni, S/o Bauwa Soni, aged about 24 years
14.Balram, S/o Shankaer Lal Tamoli, aged about 44 years
15. Sona Lal Soni, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Soni, aged about 64 years
16. Kishan @ Bauwa, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Soni, aged about 58 years
17.Ghanshyam, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Soni, aged about 51 years
18. Kamal Narayan, S/o Kanhaiya Lal Soni, aged about 63 years
19. Bhupendra @ Bhupesh, S/o Laxmi Prasad Soni, aged about 44
years
20. Dharmendra, S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Soni, aged about 37 years
All are R/o Sonarpara, Mungeli, District: Bilaspur (C.G
21. Guddu @ Rajesh Chndel, S/o Shri Ram Singh Chandel, aged
about 27 years, R/o Mahamai Ward, P.S. Mungeli, District: Bilaspur,
(C.G.).
---- Respondents
2
___________________________________________________________
For State : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents : None.
___________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
10.08.2023
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C, challenging the order of acquittal dated 09.12.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District:
Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2003, whereby, the respondents herein (accused) have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506-B, 454, 427 and 436 read with 149 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.03.2002, at about 01:00 pm, in the noon, PW-2 Pradeep Pandey (complainant) was sitting in the room of his Computer Institute. At that time, the respondents herein armed with axe, rod, hammer and also carrying kerosene oil/petrol and match box came there and started breaking the shutter of his institute, entered the premises and started breaking the articles i.e. computer system, printers etc. The respondents herein also threatened the victim/complainant of his life and poured kerosene oil at his shop thereby caused damage to the property. On complaint being made by complainant, the offences under Sections 147, 294, 3 506-B, 454 read with Sections 149, 427 read with 149 of IPC and 436 read with 149 of IPC were registered against the accused/respondents. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8, burnt articles from the shop have been seized vide Exs.P-9 to P-13, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents before the concerned trial Court under Sections 147, 294, 506-B, 454, read with Section 149, 427, 436 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to P-
23. Statement of the accused/respondents was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In support of their defence, respondents has examined none and only exhibited 2 documents i.e. Ex.D-1 & D-2.
4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of all the charges leveled against them by giving them benefit of doubt.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondents of all the charges by recording findings which are perverse to the record. He 4 further submits that there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused/respondents with the offences levelled against them and the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondents without appreciating the evidence on record in its correct perspective, thus the impugned order of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
6. None appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State, considered his submissions made herein-above and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:-
25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms 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 enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 5
9. The learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of complainant/victim, with respect to the incident, happened on 09.03.2002, at about 01:00 pm, in the noon, whereas, FIR has been lodged against the respondents (accused) at 09:20 pm i.e. with the delay of seven hours and for that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution regarding delay in lodging the FIR. Although, complainant has made oral statement that after the incident, he had gone to police station on three occasions for lodging report, but the said statement has not been proved. It is pertinently to be noted that after the incident, PW-7 M.S. Katlam, I.O. had gone to the spot but even no oral or written complaint of the incident has been made by the complainant nor the reason has been shown by him. Thus, the trial Court found that the incident was not reported by the applicant promptly after the incident even though the distance of the police station was 300 meters away from the place of incident. Further, the complainant in the Court statement has exaggerated the involvement of the accused persons in the said accident, which was not mentioned in his statement Ex.D-1 and written report Ex.P-2. Moreover, the complainant in his deposition has stated that he had told the respondent- Ghanshayam Soni not to vandalize his shop, but respondent- Ghanshayam Soni abused him in filthy language, pushed him and threatened him of life, but the said statement of complainant has not been supported by his servant 6 PW-5 Hemant Gajpal, who was also present at the time of incident.
Further, in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court found that the evidence of victim/Pradeep Pandey was not supported by PW-5 Hemant Gajpal. Moreover, the trial Court disbelieved the statement of victim/Pradeep Pandey with respect to injuries sustained by him and was intimidated by the accused/respondents by threatening him to life. Thus, considering the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate its case, the prosecution has been unable to prove its case against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, acquitted them by extending the benefit of doubt. Having gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court and taking into account the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
10. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favored the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents by giving them benefit of doubt is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this 7 appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused/respondents of the aforesaid offences is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Saurabh/Akhilesh