Dismissed

Dr. Navneet Sonwani v. Devesh Singh Thakur

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2023ACQA/103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This acquittal appeal by Dr. Navneet Sonwani challenges a Special Court's order acquitting the respondents of crimes under IPC and SC/ST Act, 1989. The High Court rejected the appeal, finding the trial court's reasoning valid and the acquittal justified as two views were possible on the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of the respondents is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

Dr. Navneet Sonwani Vs Devesh Singh Thakur — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 103 of 2023

¶5

Dr. Navneet Sonwani, S/o Dr. Shri K. R. Sonwani, aged about 33 Years, R/o D-154 Sector-6, Kamal Vihar, Raipur, P.S. Mujgahan, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Devesh Singh Thakur S/o Harishing Thakur, aged about 40 years, R/o Rathour Chowk, Ramsagarpara Indira Gandhi Ward, In Front of Hanuman Market, P.S. Moudahapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Ku. Vartika Thakur, D/o Harishing Thakur, aged about 34 Years, R/o Rathour Chowk, Ramsagarpara Indira Gandhi Ward, In Front of Hanuman Market, P.S. Moudahapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through P. S: AJAK, Raipur, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board 13.07.2023

¶15

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

¶16

Heard on admission.

¶17

This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.01.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 38/2021

¶18

¶19

whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 & 457 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989').

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.03.2021 at about 11:45 pm, over a trivial issue between the complainant- Navneet Sonwani and his wife- Swastika, his wife called his brother and sister. On this, brother and sister of complainant's wife came to the house of complainant, abused him filthily in the name of his caste, assaulted him with brick and stick, torn his T-shirt and also threatened to kill him. The said incident was witnessed by PW-2 Abhinav Soor and PW-3 C.P. Sahu. On complaint being made by complainant, offence under Sections 294, 506, 456 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(n) of the Act, 1989 were registered against the accused persons. Spot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the concerned trial Court under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323, 457 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. Accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

¶21

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven witnesses in all. Statements of the respondents/accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the

¶22

¶23

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In support of their defence, they examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Swastika Sonwani.

¶24

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents/accused of all the charges leveled against them.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has fallen into error in acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them without appreciating the evidence and material on record. He further submits that the trial Court has overlooked the statements of complainant and eye-witnesses to the incident i.e. PW-2 Abhinav Soor and PW-3 Chandraprakash Sahu, who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be reversed and the respondents/accused be held guilty and punished suitably.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶27

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:-

¶28

¶29

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.”

¶30

Perusal of the record would reveal that on 18.03.2021, the complainant/appellant, his wife and his daughter were present in their house. At about 11:45 pm, over trivial issue between the complainant and his wife, brother and sister were called upon by complainant's wife Swastika. On this, brother and sister of complainant's wife came to the house of complainant, abused him filthily in the name of his caste, assaulted him with brick and stick, torn his T-shirt and also threatened to kill him. Further, a perusal of overall statements of the appellant and the other prosecution witnesses would show that they are exaggerating the statements regarding the incident. It also appears that torn shirt, chain etc. have not been seized by the police. Further, it appears that the statements of complainant and prosecution witnesses have not been fully corroborated by documentary evidence.

¶31

¶32

Further, the medical examination of the complainant has also not been done and as per written complaint (Ex.P-1) that accused persons have entered the house of complainant and incident took place there, but as per the statements/evidence of prosecution witnesses, it would reveal that accused persons have not entered the house of complainant, so the prosecution story becomes doubtful and duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. This apart, there is family enmity between the appellant and accused persons prior to the incident. In such a situation, no allegation is proved against the accused persons. The 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 the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence against the accused persons under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 457, 323 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 and its ingredients which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of the respondents of the aforesaid offences is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

¶36

Sd/Sd/-

¶37

( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) ( Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge Judge

¶38

Akhilesh/Anjani

Dr. Navneet Sonwani v. Devesh Singh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Navneet Sonwani v. Devesh Singh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somaru Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Karan Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jila Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivdayal Bhariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Manjhwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Prasad and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh