The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against acquittal. The trial court held that disputed paternity and land mutations indicated a civil rather than criminal nature.
The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Asa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
f'A .-6^
Cr. M. P. No. yu I /2010. ','rf-i
ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. /2010.
APPELLANTS 1. Shiv Prasad, S/o. Mohar Sai,
aged about 36 years,
2. Prem Sai, S/o. Nohar Sai,
aged about 42 years,
.k\v0-:^
Both are resident of Village
^'^g>'°
Sakhauli, Police Station
^•/;^"'.^•f^' ,^*'^-
Ambikapur, at present P. S.
ft^-'
Darima, District Surguja (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT Beetan, S/o. Jang Sai,
aged about 65 years, Resident of
Village Sakhauli, Police Station
Darima, Surguja (C. G.).
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN
COMPLAINT CASE UNDER SECTION 378 (4) OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
'•^.
%_
AT Singie Banch : Hon'bie Mr. Justic®Prltiriker" Dlwake?' :010
i-rc
Shiv Prasad & anol'hsr-
Versus
R?B€?'i'ffyi s/ o ana Soi
Mr. Shravan Agrawal, counss! for the appiicant.
"r^t N rux & CTAL A^'&S PPf-At ,^. THE JUD6AAENT OF ACQUITTAL IN COMPLAIN ER SECT10N 378 OF CODE OF n,
Heord OF! admission.
'he preser't petitionfiiedunderSsction378 (4)ofths Code of Criminai Procedure is d'rected against the impugned and orde" dsted 6.2.2010 by Judlcial judgment passsd AAagistrate Flrst Ciass Ambikapur, Sarguja in Crlmina! Case No.450/2006 whersby acquitting the respondent in a complaint case, under Sectio"s 419 <& 420 of the Indian Pena! Code.
'WWWS^ff^S^S^^S
;:€<br>i
'•^ 'v. J.i1
'^SS^sS^'' .-f:
his name in a!! the"evenue records. Compidncnts have ai'eged that when they came to know about ths said act of Beetan on 28.10.1991 they informed the pojicefortakingnecessary action against the accuse.d persons, however, ir' the"eport submitted by the poiics, it has been mentioned that by mistoks father's nams of the"espondent No. 1 was"scorded as Jang Sai and there is nothing agdnst him. Accor'dlng to the complainants, by playing frcud and foraery respondents No. 1 & 2 aot recor'ded their names on the !ond of Pancham and the other accused Dersons hav®hslDed them. 3. Counse! for the apps!iarits/co"'p!a;na"ts submits thot o" 6.12.1996 compiaint aqo.inst the proposed accused No. 3 to 6 was dismissed whereas on 11-5.2007 proposed accused No. 2 Ujitram was discharged. He submits+hat on the basis of evidence adduced by the comp'ainants, the court beiow ought to h.avs'conyict-sd the re'spon.dent/accused.
r~
•...-x^ '^.£^-1^1"
deceased Pancham and this was done on the basi-s of gift deed. Considering thi.s fact, the court betow was of the view that matter appears to be of a ciyil nature ond th.e same co" only be decided by the Competent Civi! Court and by hoiding this, the court beiow has acquitted the r'espondent/accused under Section 419 &. 420 of the.Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt.
For the reasons CTforementioned, there is "o merit i" the
present case and the so.me is dismissed accordin9Jy.
Sd/-
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of acquittal by the trial court was a perverse view of evidence.
Whether the appellate court can interfere with an acquittal in a dispute involving mixed civil questions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiv Prasad
Prem Sai
Beetan
Pt. Trikeri Dlwake
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
