State appealed against Special Judge's acquittal of two accused of grievous hurt and SC/ST atrocities. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness evidence and no illegality was found.
The acquittal appeal preferred by the State was dismissed.
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
ACQA No. 95 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
(Both R/o village Paurkheda, P.S. Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.))
---- Respondents
For Applicant/State : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Saket Pandey, counsel on behalf of Mr. Anoop Majumdar, counsel
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
02.08.2023
2
intercepted him and forcibly taken him to the house nearby gully and assaulted him with club. After hearing the noise of complainant, one Hardas came there, broke open the door and tried to save him, whom the accused/respondent also assaulted with club as a result of which Hardas sustained grievous hurt. Further case of the prosecution is that after hearing the cries of complainant and Harda, other villagers namely Saradhu Ram, Yashwant, Mochi Ram, Bhagat Ram and others also came to the place of occurrence and rescued the complainant and Hardas & took them out. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and on the complaint (Ex.P/3) of the Complainant Sanjay Kumar. FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. Complainant Sanjay Kumar was medically examined vide Ex.P/1, according to which, he sustianed multiple abrasion over left lower forearms, swelling present in left side of head over temporal region and multiple abrasion in left arm. After usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional trial Court, and the trial Court framed charges under Sections 341/34, 342/34, 323/34, 323/34, 506 Part-II/ 34 and Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST Act against accused/ respondents.
3
4
of doubt. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there 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. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
pkd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of respondents should be reversed on appeal by the State given contradictions in witness statements.
Whether the trial court erred in law in acquitting the accused despite evidence against them.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, P.S. Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
Murarilal
Jagannath
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
