Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Verma and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2023ACQA/157/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal by the State against acquittals, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined whether the lower appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's convictions for criminal breach of trust and cheating. Upholding the acquittal, the Court found the lower appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence and held that a possible view favoring the accused must prevail.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal appeal preferred by the State is dismissed; acquittal of respondents is affirmed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Verma and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 157 of 2010

¶5

Judgment Reserved on : 03/08/2023 Judgment delivered on : 13/09/2023

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. JanjgirChampa (CG)

¶7

---- Appellant Versus

¶8

Rajesh Verma, S/o Ramesh Chandra Verma, aged about 51 years, R/o Dipupara, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur.

¶9

Smt. Rajeshwari Pandey, W/o Ambika Prasad Pandey, aged about 38 years, R/o Dipupara, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. AG For Respondents : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶12

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

CAV Judgment

¶14

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 13.4.2009 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir in Criminal Appeal Nos.50/2008 and 48/2008 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.6.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in Criminal Case No.1225/2008 convicting and sentencing respondent No.1 under Sections 409 and 182 of IPC and respondent No.2 under Section 411 of IPC, has been set aside and they have been acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent No.1/accused Rajesh Verma who was working as Cashier in Nariyara Gramin Bank, Pamgarh lodged a report that on 26.3.2007 while he was

¶16

¶17

working alone in the said bank, at about 4.30 pm two boys who had covered their faces with mask entered the bank and on the threat of life, looted total Rs.6.60 lacs from the bank and thereafter, fled from there on motorcycle. He informed about the said incident to Ramlochan and thereafter informed the Branch Manager over telephone. On the basis of aforesaid report, offence under Section 394 of IPC was registered. However, during investigation, it was found that the said report is false and in fact, it is respondent No.1/accused who misappropriated the said amount and handed over the same to respondent No.2/accused who was his maid. At the instance of respondent No.1, an amount of Rs.4.60 lacs was recovered from the house of respondent No.2. Thus, after completing investigation, charge sheet under Sections 409, 182, 411, 34 of IPC was filed against the accused persons.

¶18

Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 409 and 182 of IPC against respondent No.1 and under Section 411 of IPC against respondent No.2, which were denied by them and they pleaded for trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC were recorded wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶19

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material placed on record, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 6.6.2008 convicted respondent No.1 under Section 409 & 182 of IPC and

¶20

¶21

sentenced him to undergo RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- & RI for six months, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations and respondent No.2 under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo RI for two years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, respondents No. 1 & 2 preferred separate appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 50/2008 and 48/2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir. By the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2009, both the appeals were allowed by the learned lower appellate Court and the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence this appeal by the State.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court acquitting the respondents of the charges under Sections 409, 182 & 411 of IPC are per se illegal, improper and contrary to the evidence available on record. The lower appellate Court has committed an error in appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. The prosecution witnesses are natural and truthful and have given the true version of the occurrence but the learned lower appellate Court looking to the minor discrepancies in their statements, which were irrelevant, doubted the credibility of the witnesses. Respondent No.1 being a public servant embezzled amount of public exchequer and thereby committed offence of criminal breach of trust and respondent No.2 knowingly well that the amount which she is receiving is stolen by

¶24

¶25

respondent No.1, received the same. Learned lower appellate Court failed to appreciate that there is no inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on material point. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned lower appellate Court upon minute examination and appreciation of the overall evidence on record has rightly set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the respondents of all the charges and as such, no interference is required by this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that on 26.3.2007 respondent No.1 was working in the bank as Cashier and on that date, the Bank Manager Meena Anguriya (PW-1) was on leave. On that date, it was informed by respondent No.1 that two persons wearing mask entered the bank and looted Rs.6.60 lacs from the bank. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.1 on the same day. As per prosecution case, the looted amount was recovered from respondent No.2 who was servant/maid of respondent No.1.

¶29

Lal Singh (PW-2) and Prakash Goswami (PW-8) have though admitted their signature on the memorandum Ex.P/2 of respondent No.1/accused Rajesh Verma but they have not proved the signature of

¶30

¶31

the said accused. They have not stated that accused Rajesh put his signature on the memorandum before them. Likewise, investigating officer (PW-10) has also not proved the signature of accused Rajesh on the memorandum. Additional witness No.1 Ashok Swarnkar, handwriting expert has also stated that memorandum Ex.P/2 does not bear the signature of accused Rajesh Verma. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove memorandum Ex.P/2 in accordance with law and therefore, the seizure made in consequence thereof appears to be doubtful.

¶32

Accused Rajesh Verma was arrested on 31.3.2007 at 21:00 hours whereas his memorandum was recorded on 31.3.2007 at 17:00 hours. The investigating officer has not explained this fact in his crossexamination. Learned lower appellate Court also observed that in the statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC, no question was asked by the trial court on material particulars. The witnesses of recovery have also not corroborated each other. Therefore, in the given set of evidence, the learned lower appellate Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.

¶33

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muralidhar Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held in paras 11 & 12 as under:-

¶34

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh V. State [AIR 1952

¶35

¶36

SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR p.54, para 7)

¶37

“7...... the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

¶38

12. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:-

¶39

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

¶40

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

¶41

(iii) Thought, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

¶42

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the

¶43

¶44

interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

¶45

Thus, it is a well settled principle of law that in case of appeal against acquittal, the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the Court below is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. Having gone through the findings recorded by the Court below in the impugned judgment and the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, this Court finds no such illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents of the charges. Even otherwise, it is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. In the present case, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case, learned lower appellate Court has rightly held that the offences alleged against the respondents are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus, acquitted them of the charges leveled against them.

¶46

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State being bereft of any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶47

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶48

Khan

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Verma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Verma and Ors.

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

Prashenjit Mitra Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited And Ors.

Harinarayan Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhashani Gupta Vs Ramesh Gupta

State of Chhattisgarh Vs B.L.Sharma

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jamuna Prasad Shende

Nihal Parwej Vs Mohd.Hafiq Ansari @ Ballu Bhai