The High Court dismissed an acquittal appeal. The court found that the acquittal by the trial court was not an error or infirmity, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of independent witnesses and contradictions in evidence.
Acquittal appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents confirmed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Acquittal Appeal No.152 of 2015
The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhatapara Rural, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Ratiram S/o Dhaniram, aged 28 years,
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Sudheram, aged 32 years,
3. Baburam S/o Baliram, aged 25 years,
4. Panna Lal S/o Sudheram, aged 21 years,
All are R/o Village Jaraud, Police Station Bhatapara (Rural) District Balodabazar, Bhatapar, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri HS Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents: Shri Aishwary Franklin, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
14.09.2023.
1. The instant Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara in Criminal Case No.J606/2014, acquitting the respondents from the offence under Sections 294, 323, and 147/149 IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 09.09.2001 at around
2
08:30 o’clock it is alleged that in public place the accused persons is said to have abused and assaulted the complainant and other persons by using filthy language. Pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant Sukhchand Banjare (PW-1), the Police of Police Station Bhatapara (Rural), DistrictBalodabazar lodged an FIR vide Crime No.83/2001 against the accused respondents and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet filed befroe the Trial Court. During the course of trial, charges were framed under Sections 294, 323 147/149 IPC, read over and explained to the accused who abjured their guilt.
3. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties vide its impugned judgment acquitted the accused from the aforesaid offences, leading to filing of this Acquittal Appeal.
4. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the acquittal of accused persons is bad in law. The court below has not properly appreciated the evidence which have been adduced on behalf of the prosecution and have granted acquittal to the respondents in a cryptic manner without appreciating the evidence of material witness examined. The Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the statement of complainant, PW-1 whose statement was fully corroborated by the statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5.
3
5. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, however, acquittal has been granted to the accused only on the ground of certain contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. The State counsel also stressed upon the manner in which all the accused persons gathered and assaulted the complainant and his family members after abusing them for a long time. The accused have assaulted even a school going boy of Class-VIth. The act of the accused was barbaric.
6. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of accused needs interference.
7. On the other hand the counsel for the accused supported the impugned judgment on the ground that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in the instant case to prove the guilt. All the witnesses are relatives and interested witness. Hence the judgment impugned passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference.
8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
9. In the present case all the witnesses are interested witness. No independent witness have been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 Sukhchand has not stated anything in his deposition that what abusive word was used by the respondent-accused. PW-2 Kamta, PW-3 Manharan Lal, PW-4 Indrajeet and PW-5 Gyanwati
4
have stated in their deposition that the accused persons abused them but what abusive word was used by the accused persons is not similar. There are huge contradictions with regard to the alleged abusive word used by the respondents-accused.
10. It is also pertinent to mention here that none of the witnesses have stated that on being heard alleged abuses they felt regretted and humiliated. All the witnesses have stated that the respondents-accused have also assaulted them on account of which they sustained injuries, but to substantiate their deposition the Doctor has not been examined. Further, there is no independent witness examined by the prosecution to support their case. All the witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 are family members. Thus, it can be safely held that they are interested witness. Previous enmity is also proved from the statement of PW-2 who has stated that there was some dispute between the parties on account of wall constructed by the accused and which was demolished by the complainant. Further there is no overt act attributed against each of the accused in the commission of the offence.
11. An order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly unless it is grossly perverse, there has been serious misappreciation of evidence or non-consideration of material evidence and witnesses. If the view taken by the Trial Judge is a possible view,
5
the Appellate Court will not interfere only because another view may also be possible. It is for the prosecution to lead the best evidence and prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity while reaching to the conclusion of acquittal of the respondents-accused from the commission of offence under Sections 294 and 323 IPC
13. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge
inder
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquittal of accused persons in a public provocation and assault case should be interfered with despite prosecution evidence consisting of interested witnesses.
Whether contradictions and omissions in witness statements justify setting aside an acquittal granted by the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Ratiram S/o Dhaniram
Rajendra Kumar S/o Sudheram
Baburam S/o Baliram
Panna Lal S/o Sudheram
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
