Dismissed

Pratima Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2023ACQA/209/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the complainant's petition. Upholding the trial court's discretion to benefit the accused when evidence is evenly balanced, the Court found no substantial ground to disturb the acquittal despite the relationship between parties.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents was upheld.

Pratima Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 209 of 2009

¶5

Judgment reserved on : 02/08/2023 Judgment delivered on : 08/09/2023

¶6

Smt. Pratima Pal, W/o Shri Kumaresh Pal & D/o Shri Syamratan Sahu, Aged about- 25 years, R/o In front of Gupta Kirana Stores, Aditya Nagar Titurdih, Police Station- Mohan Nagar Durg (C.G.), Tah. & District- Durg (C.G.).

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Officer-In-Charge, Police StationMohan Nagar Durg, Tah. & District- Durg (C.G.).

¶10

Hetu Das, S/o Shri Syamratan Sahu, Aged about- 28 years, R/o Village- Karhidih, Police Chowki- Jewra Sirsa, P.S. Pulgaon, Durg, Tah. & District- Durg (C.G.).

¶11

Ram Swaroop, S/o (name of father not known) Hamal in Railway Parcel Godown, R/o Titurdih Nagar Chowk, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tah. & District- Durg (C.G.).

¶12

Shyam Ratan Sahu, S/o Late Mayaram Sahu, Aged about 45 years,

¶13

Chatur Das, S/o Late Mayaram Sahu, Aged About- 40 years, respondents No. 4 & 5 both are R/o Village- Karhideeh, Police Chowki- Jevra Sirsa, Police Station- Pulgaon, Tah. & District- Durg (C.G.).

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : None.

¶16

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶17

CAV Judgment

¶18

¶19

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 265/2002 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 452/34, 384/34 & 506(B)/34 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant filed a complaint case against the accused/respondents No. 2 to 5 alleging that they had committed criminal trespass by making forced entry in her dwelling house and forced her to sign on two stamp papers. In the said stamp papers, accused had already written that the appellant/complainant is relinquishing her rights over her ancestral properties. At that time, respondents No. 2 to 5 had put her in fear of death. Thereafter, complainant/appellant filed complaint against respondents and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 265/2002. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondents and charges were framed as mentioned above.

¶21

So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 02 witnesses and statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶22

After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, trial court acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 452/34, 384/34 & 506(B)/34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal filed by the

¶23

¶24

appellant/complainant.

¶25

This appeal has been field on the ground that the appellant/complainant- Pratima Pal (C.W.-1) has made unambiguous and clear-cut allegations against respondents No.4 & 5 in her deposition but the same has not been considered by learned trial Court. Kumaresh Pal (C.W.-2) who is husband of the complainant/appellant also made allegations against the accused persons but the learned trial Court did not consider his uncontroverted statement. The impugned order has been passed on extraneous consideration and contrary to evidence available on record. Learned trial Court failed to consider that respondent No.2 is real brother of the appellant/complainant whereas respondents No.4 & 5 are her father and uncle respectively and, therefore, learned trial Court should have examined the entire case from this angle as to why appellant would make serious allegations against her kith and kin. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are highly perverse and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ State also supported the complainant's version.

¶27

No one appears on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶29

Appellant stated in her cross-examination that she informed her husband about the incident after two days. It is admitted by the appellant in para 3 of her cross-examination that she signed the

¶30

¶31

papers at advocate office and it is also admitted by her that a criminal case was pending against her brother and father. She further admitted that she filed civil suit for partition. Complainant Witness No.2- Kumaresh Pal also stated that complainant informed him about the incident after two days. He also admitted in his cross-examination that they have filed a civil suit for partition before the Court of Naib Tehsildar which has been dismissed by the said Court. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of both the witnesses and arrived at the conclusion that the complainant/appellant did not prove her case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5.

¶32

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muralidhar alias Gidda & Another v. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held in paras 11 & 12 as under:-

¶33

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

¶34

“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.”

¶35

12. Suffice it to say that this Court has

¶36

¶37

consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:-

¶38

(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;

¶39

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

¶40

(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

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

Applying the aforesaid legal proposition in the present case as well, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 452/34, 384/34 & 506(B)/34 of IPC are based on proper appreciation of material available on record as the complainant/appellant failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court finds no illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the aforesaid charges. Even otherwise, there is a settled legal position that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused has to be taken. The appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal until and unless the findings of acquittal have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering irrelevant ones. In this case, this Court finds no such illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court which warrant interference by this Court.

¶44

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶47

Ruchi

Pratima Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Smt.Chandrakali Maravi Vs Chamasheelwati and Ors.

Pannalal Jain Vs Nohar singh

Bedram Dhritlahare Vs Smt. Ekta Dhritlahare

Bal Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Panjwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toran Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh