This acquittal appeal by the State challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting accused persons of assault and assault causing hurt charges. The High Court examined witness reliability, medical evidence, and rivalries, finding the trial court properly appreciated the case. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.07 of 2011
The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Amrit Das, aged about 21 years, S/o Sukhdas, Cultivator.
2. Amrika Bai, Aged about 25 years, W/o Suman, Cultivator, R/o Village Jhilga (Puran) Police Station Bemetara District Durg, MP.
3. Vinod Bai, aged about 18 years, W/o Amritdas, Cultivator.
4. Chandrkali, aged about 45 years, W/o Sukhdas. Respondents No.1,3 and 4 are R/o Village Jhilga, Police Station Nandghat, District Durg, MP (Now Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri HS Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
08.09.2023.
1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment dated 29.02.2000 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, in Criminal Case No.279/1998 acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges under Sections 452, 324/34, 323/34 and 506(B) IPC.
2. Facts in brief relevant for adjudication of the case are that, the complainant Bijan Bai and the accused persons are the resident of same village Jhilga. On 25.5.1998 at about 5.30 in the evening some dispute arose between the complainant and the accused persons on account of Cow Dung resulting into fight between them by hand and
2
fist. The accused threatened the complainant to kill. An FIR was lodged by the complainant Bijan Bai vide Ex. P/3 at Police Station Maro on the same day i.e. on 25.05.1998. The matter was investigated. The complainant was medically examined. After investigation, the respondents were charged for the offences mentioned in preceding paragraph.
3. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses, whereas the accused did not lead any defence witness. The trial court finally vide its judgment impugned acquitted the accused persons from the aforesaid offences, leading to filing of this Acquittal Appeal by the State.
4. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal, counsel for the State submitted that the acquittal of all the 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. Therefore, grant of acquittal to the respondents is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The eyewitnesses have clearly stated in their deposition that the complainant was being beaten by all the accused persons. They were also threatening the complainant to kill her.
5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. As per the deposition of the victim, Mankunwar, PW-2 and Lal Bai, PW-5 are the eyewitnesses. They have supported the statement of victim that the respondents have assaulted the victim and threatened
3
to kill her. However, the said witness Mankunwar has stated in her cross examination that she came out from her house when the dispute was specified. She again rebutted her aforesaid statement and further stated that she is unable to state the fact that for how much time the dispute was going on.
7. Bhurwa, PW-4, has also stated in his deposition that he had seen the incident, but in the cross examination he has stated that at the time of Marpeet he was not there. Thus, he himself has rebutted his deposition made in his examination-in-chief.
8. Lal Bai, PW5 is also said to be an eyewitness. She has stated that she has seen the victim beaten by the accused persons. Ghasi Ram, PW3, has also stated that he had seen the incident from the field of one Khilawan. However, as per deposition of Lal Bai, PW5, the Sister of witness Ghasi Ram, his brother Ghasi Ram has had made a complaint against the accused persons to cancel their Patta, but despite that the Patta was not canceled and due to this the dispute is going on between Ghasi Ram and the accused persons. Therefore, false implication by Ghasi Ram and supporting the prosecution on account of his personal interest cannot be ruled out.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the deposition led by eyewitnesses Lal Bai, PW-5 and Ghasi Ram, PW-3 are not found to trustworthy and reliable one. The deposition of Mankunwar Bai, PW-2 is also having various contradictions and omissions. Although, Dr. R.S. Thakur, PW7, have stated that in the medical examination he found abrasion only in the left wrist of the victim Bijan Bai. She was also complaining pain
4
on her Chest and throat in this regard. However, no external injury was found on her chest and throat, thus, there was some sort of contradiction. The Doctor opined that the injuries were simple in nature and curable within seven days without any complication. Medical report was prepared vide Ex. P/4.
10. The complainant herself has stated in her deposition that one Salik Ram Soni used to give his land on Adhiya basis to the father of the complainant, however, this year Adhiya was given to the father of the accused instead of father of the complainant. Therefore, some sort of rivalry between the complainant and the accused persons on this count also cannot be ruled out. The issue involved is also too trivial in nature. The quarrel stated due to sudden provocation and heat of passion. The injury sustained by the complainant were also simple in nature.
11. In case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [2007 (4) SCC 415], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Para 42 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
5
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
12. All these facts would go in favour of the respondents accused. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, 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
6
conclusion of acquittal of the respondents-accused from the commission of offence under Sections 452, 324/34, 323/34 and 506(B) IPC.
13. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge
inder
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court committed any illegality or infirmity in acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 452, 324/34, 323/34 and 506(B) IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaExplained¶33
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [2007 (4) SCC 415] · Who else cites this
The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Amrit Das
Amrika Bai
Vinod Bai
Chandrkali
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
