Dismissed

State of C.G. v. Dagan@Ram Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2023ACQA/349/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this acquittal appeal under Section 417 CrPC, the State challenged the trial court's decision acquitting accused of offenses under Sections 294, 394, 365, and 506(B)/34 IPC. The bench upheld the acquittal, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court's finding was a possible view.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of respondents is upheld.

State of C.G. Vs Dagan@Ram Kumar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 349 of 2010

¶5

The State of Chhattisgarh Through- Reserved Centre, Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dagan @ Ramkumar, S/o Bhulawan, Aged about 30 years,

¶9

Gulab Das @ Batakh, S/o Goverdhan, Aged about 31 years,

¶10

Gangadhar, S/o Chaitu Satnami, Aged about 18 years,

¶11

Rajesh Kumar, S/o Udairam, Aged about 27 years,

¶12

All are R/o Village Garra, P.S. & Tahsil- Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant/State : Mr. Wasim Miyan, P.L. For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶16

03.08.2023

¶17

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District- Durg in Criminal Case No. 28/2005 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges under Sections 294, 394, 365, 506(B)/34 of IPC.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that it has been alleged that on the date of incident, respondents/accused were in a drunken

¶19

¶20

condition and when complainant was standing near the street, they abused the complainant and started assaulting him with belt and also threatened him for dire consequences. Thereafter, respondents/accused looted a wrist watch and cash amounting to Rs.200/- from the complainant. 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 11 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 has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 294, 394, 365, 506(B)/34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant/State.

¶23

Learned State counsel submits that the the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that learned trial Court has erred in examination of the statements of (P.W.-1) Gopal Sharma, (P.W.-6) Dr. N.K. Tiwari, (P.W.-8) P. Santosh Rao, (P.W.-9) Guharam and (P.W.-10) Rameshwar Pandey by which the case of the prosecution is fully

¶24

¶25

established. Learned trial Court has not duly appreciated the contents of the FIR and the statement of the complainant (P.W.1) Gopal Sharma and passed the judgment of acquittal which is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial judge is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submits that in this case, prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents and this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶28

Complainant- Gopal Sharma (P.W.-1) stated that the accused snatched the wallet from his hand. Another witness namely P. Santosh Rao (P.W.-8) stated that he did not see the accused namely Dagan @ Ramkumar snatching the wallet of the complainant and Eye-witnesses also did not support the version of the complainant. Learned trial Court minutely scrutinized the evidence of all witnesses and arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶29

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

¶30

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh V. State [AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331] while

¶31

¶32

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)

¶33

“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.”

¶34

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:(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;

¶35

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

¶36

(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

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

(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.

¶40

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 of the offence punishable under Sections 294, 394, 365, 506(B)/34 of IPC are based on material available on record as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court finds no illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents, particularly when there is a settled legal position that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Even otherwise, the prosecution has utterly failed in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court is fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal.

¶41

11.Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶44

Ruchi

State of C.G. v. Dagan@Ram Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of C.G. v. Dagan@Ram Kumar

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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Murarilal and Anr.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramsumiran Patel

Sanjay Bhosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Vs Vishwanath Soni

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Safdar Ali

Prakash Kumar Sarway Vs Daitari Gupta