Chattisgarh High Court
Ramsai Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 April, 2024
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:11737 1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 01/02/2024
Order passed on 03/04/2024
Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2018
Ramsai Netam, aged about 48 years, S/o Surjuram Netam, R/o
Village Eragaon, Post Salhe, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt. UB
Kanker, CG
---- Petitioner/Victim
-Versus-
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Distt. Uttar Bastar,
Kanker, CG
2. Manu Gota, aged about 29 years, S/o Budhram Gota,
3. Nirmal Kavde, aged about 26 years, S/o Brijlal Kavde,
4. Dovaram Kodiyam, aged about 20 years, S/o Tula Ram Kodiyam
5. Jaisingh Kavde, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Johan Kavde,
6. Shriram Hidko, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Lalsaya
7. Chabiram Gavde, aged about 21 years, S/o Ramlal,
8. Gangaram Komra, aged about 35 years, S/o Dhansingh Komra,
9. Raju Hidko, aged about 25 years, S/o Hiruram,
10. Gendlal Hidko, aged about 31 years, S/o Hiruram
11. Bhagwan Singh Hidki, aged about 30 years, S/o Ramlal Hidko.
12. Rambabu, aged about 29 years, S/o Rooprai Kavde.
Respondent no. 2 to 13 are R/o Village Iragaon, Chowki Kacche,
Thana and Tahsil Bhupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker, CG
---- Respondent/Accused For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondents/accused : Mr. Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rajani Dubey, J C.A.V. ORDER
1. The petitioner/victim has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11737 2 Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker whereby the judgment dated 18.5.2017 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur in Criminal Case No.141/2014 acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 325/149, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 4 of CG Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, has been upheld while dismissing the appeal.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Jitendra Netam made a written complaint to the police that on 5.3.2014 at around 10 pm two villagers came to his house and informed that his father is being beaten by some villagers near the stage. Thereupon, he along with his mother went to the spot and saw the villagers beat his father. When they intervened, they too were beaten by the villagers. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 325/149, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 4 of CG Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act against the respondents/accused, to which they denied the charges and prayed for trial.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses.
Statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the overall evidence adduced by the parties came to conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, by the judgment dated 18.5.2017 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11737 3 acquitted the accused of all the charges by giving them benefit of doubt. The said judgment was challenged in appeal, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court. Hence this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment has been passed without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The offence alleged against the respondents/accused was a serious one, there was a head injury to the petitioner and also fracture on the head which was caused by hard and blunt object. Though the doctor had also suggested for CT scan but that report was not submitted by the prosecution. As per CT scan report filed herewith as Annexure P/2, it is evident that the petitioner sustained segmental fracture of left sided zygomatic bone. He further submits that when the complaint was made to the Magistrate, the offence was registered against the respondents/accused, though the complaint was made against 28 persons under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 201, 202, 307, 308, 323, 324, 325, 326, 341, 342, 506B, 294 and 34 of IPC and Section 4, 5, 6 & 8 of Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam vide Annexure P/1. There is firm evidence of PW-1 victim that the respondents/accused caused him injury over head saying that he is Tonha which is also supported by the evidence of PW-2 Jitendar and PW-5 Devyasai and the medical evidence also supports the prosecution case, however, learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the overall evidence available on record and acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges which has been subsequently affirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11737 4 impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused be convicted and sentenced for the act committed by them, in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the State has duly assisted the Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court taking into account the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges and being so, the appellate Court also affirmed the same by the impugned judgment. There is no such illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment which needs interference by this Court. The revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record.
9. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. However, PW- 2 Jitendra Netam, PW-3 Shivprasad Salam, PW-4 Pawan Netam and PW-5 Devaibai have stated that at the time of incident they were not present at the spot. Learned trial Court and the appellate Court minutely appreciated the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses and found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11737 5
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--
inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re- appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
11. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law for deciding the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:11737 6 appeal against acquittal, the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution and that there is limited scope in revision for interference, this Court finds no such illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court warranting any interference by this Court. The revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan