Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Hirva Satnami (Died) and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2023ACQA/228/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC, the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the trial court's decision to acquit accused persons of charges under Section 307 IPC. holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that only one view was possible favouring the accused.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondents under Section 307 and alternative Section 307/34 IPC affirmed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Hirva Satnami… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO. 228 of 2010

¶4

State Of Chhattisgarh

¶5

---Applicant/lAppellant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Hirva Satnami, aged about 53 years, S/o. Parshottam

¶8

Nakul, aged about 35 years, s/o. Hirva

¶9

Shivprasad, aged about 29 years, S/o. Hirva

¶10

All residents of Village Parasboda, Thana Kunda,Presently Thana Mungeli, District-Bilaspur

¶11

Surendra, aged about 27 years, S/o. Hirva Satnami resident of Village Parasboda, Thana Kunda presently Thana Mungeli, presently resident of Manjhvapara, Bilaspur, Jarhabhata, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondents

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant/State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Surya Kant Mishra, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal (Judgment on 10/07/2023)

¶14

Per Radhakishan Agrawal

¶15

This is an acquittal appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2002 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.211/1999 acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 307 and in alternative 307/34 IPC.

¶16

Prosecution story in brief is that on 17/01/1999 when the complainant Komal Prasad (P.W.9), Samaru (P.W.1) and his brother

¶17

¶18

Rajkumar (P.W.6) as also Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) were returning from the Setganga market, at about 6:00 p.m. near village Chamari all the non-applicants, who laid in wait armed Lathi (Wooden stick) assaulted Samaru and Rajkumar with Lathi causing grievous injuries to them and after the incident non-applicants ran away from the place of incident. Komal Prasad and Dilip Kumar were the eyewitnesses to the incident. After the incident the complainant Komal Prasad stated the whole story to his uncle Reshamlal and Dukaluram. On the same day the complainant Komal Prasad lodged an FIR at Police Station, Mungeli and offence under sections 341,323, 324/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against the nonapplicants vide Ex.P/16 and after that Samaru and Rajkumar were admitted to the hospital. Victims/injured persons were sent for examination to Dr. R. Bhattacharya, who opined that injuries sustained by them were serious in nature and caused by hard and blunt object and advised them to X-ray.

¶19

During course of investigation, pursuant to F.I.R. respondents/accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.25. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused persons under Sections 323, 325, 307/34 of IPCbefore the Court of J.M.F.C. Mungeli. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the trial Court has framed charges against the respondents under Section 307 in alternative Section 307/34 IPC.

¶20

¶21

The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home guilt of the respondents. Statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the respondents examined 5 witnesses, namely, Sevak Ram (D.W.1, Dr. K.N.Kanwar (D.W.2), K.R. Mahilange (D.W.3), Prahlad (D.W.4) and Ishwar Upadhyay (D.W.5) and exhibited documents Ex. D.1 to Ex.D.5 in their support.

¶22

After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court held that the prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charge.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case and thereby erred in law in acquitting the respondents/accused persons.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 4 would submit that the learned trial court after due and proper appreciation the evidence, oral and documentary, has acquitted the respondents/accused persons by its well merited judgment, which does not call for any interference.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record carefully and minutely.

¶26

¶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

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.”

¶29

Perusal of the record would reveal that there is dispute between the parties with respect to property. As per statement of Samaru (P.W.1), there are total 4 persons including Komal Prasad (P.W.9), Samaru (P.W.1) and his brother Rajkumar (P.W.6) as also Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) present at the place of occurrence. It is also clear from his statement that the accused persons first assaulted him and then to his nephew Rajkumar, however, no report was lodged by them. But, one Komalprasad (P.W.9), nephew of Samaru, has lodged a written report at Police Station, Mungeli. As per statement of Rajkumar (P.W.6), the incident was stated to be happened on Sunday, i.e., 16.01.1999 and the accused Surendra assaulted him over his thighs, as a result of which, this witness fell down unconscious and upon seeing the incident, Dilip Kumar (P.W.4), who

¶30

¶31

was also present on the spot, ran away and Rajkumar was lying on the road in an unconscious condition. Samaruram (P.W.1) has testified that he was also assaulted and at that time, only Komal Prasad (P.W.9) was present and Rajkumar (P.W.6) and Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) were behind the place of incident. It also appears from the record that Rajkumar was also assaulted by the respondents while causing injury to his partner, i.e. Samaruram and as a result of such assault he fell down unconscious but a bare perusal of his statement would show that Samaruram was not the eye-witness. He has further stated in his evidence that three unknown persons were coming towards Rajkumar and assaulted him but it could not be established by him as to whether those three unknown persons are accused persons or not. Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) did not support the testimony of Rajkumar and Samaru Ram.

¶32

A perusal of testimony of Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) would reveal that he knew the accused persons but has deposed that Rajkumar was assaulted by three unknown persons. Komalprasad (P.W.9), in his evidence, has stated that the incident had happened on 17.01.1999 whereas as per Rajkumar, the incident had happened on 16.01.1999. Perusal of evidence of Komalprasad would reveal that his evidence does not inspire confidence and not reliable.

¶33

A bare perusal of the evidence of victims/injured persons would reveal that their statements are inconsistent with each other. There are material contradictions and omissions in their statements. The

¶34

¶35

trial Court, after minutely scanning the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Having observed as such, the trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused persons of the charge under Section 307 in alternative Section 307/34 IPC.

¶36

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 favoured 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 opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents under Section 307 and in alternative Section 307/34 of IPC is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents of the aforesaid offences is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/Sd/-

¶38

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

¶39

Anjani

State of Chhattisgarh v. Hirva Satnami (Died) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Hirva Satnami (Died) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Umesh Thakur

Laxmi Narayan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendram Nirala Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gannuram

Rajkumar @ Bhusu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chaitan Majhwar Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh