Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Shiv Kumar Sarthi

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2023CRMP/1553/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected an application under Section 378 CrPC for leave to appeal against a lower court's order of acquittal. The court held that the trial court's finding was not contrary to evidence and the principle of presumption of innocence required the matter to remain disposed of in favor of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC rejected; appeal rejected; CRMP disposed of.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shiv Kumar Sarthi — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRMP No. 1553 of 2023

¶4

1 - State of Chhattisgarh through - Police Station, Ranitrai, District - Durg, (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - Shiv Kumar Sarthi S/o Kuwar Singh Srthi Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village - Kurmigunda, Thana - Ranitrai, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Ptitioner/State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶11

Per Ramesh Sinha,Chief Justice 01.12.2023

¶12

The present application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned 8^th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.25/2021, whereby the respondent has been acquitted form the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506 II, 307 & 201 of IPC .

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.02.2021 at

¶14

¶15

about 13.31 AM at village Kurmigundra, Patan, District – Durg (C.G) the accused respondent has abused the complainant’s husband Yugal Kishor Aadil in filthy language in public place and has threatened him and also assaulted him with Sabbal (iron rod) with the intention to kill him, thereafter a case was got registered against the present accused/ respondent and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against him which is a punishable offence under Section 294, 506 part II and 307 and 201 of the IPC.

¶16

Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution has fully proved the case against the respondent/accused, but the trial Court has wrongly discarded the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges for offences under Sections 294, 506-II, 307 and 201 of IPC. He fur ther submits that the trial Court ought to have considered that the PW-1 (Yugal Kishore Aadil), who is the injured, has categorically deposed that on the date and time of the incident the injured was assaulted by the accused with iron rod. It is further submitted that the PW-2 (Sandhya Aadil) wife of the injured, PW-3 Narayan Sahu, PW-4

¶17

¶18

Mahesh Kumar Sahu, PW-5 Durgesh Vishwakarma, PW-6 Horilal Sahu (Patwari), PW-7 Ramnath Nirmal (Patwari), PW-8 Dr. Marachand Gillharer (Head Costable), PW-9 Ajay Thakur, PW-10 Nakul Thakur (ASI) have supported the version of the prosecution case and therefore, the witnesses have categorically stated about the act of the appellant which clearly constitute the aforesaid offences. He further submits that after appreciating the evidence on record learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the Respondent and as such, acquitted him from the offences under Section 294, 506 part II and 201 of IPC and converted the offence framed under Section 307 of the IPC into Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, the leave to appeal be allowed and the matter be re-adjudicated.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the State/petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶20

The Trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charges punishable under Sections 294, 506 par-II, 307 and 201 of IPC while he has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC.

¶21

¶22

As per the impugned judgment, in order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-1 (Yugal Kishore Aadil), who is injured, PW-2 (Sandhya Aadil) wife of the injured, PW-3 Narayan Sahu, PW-4 Mahesh Kumar Sahu, PW-5 Durgesh Vishwakarma, PW-6 Horilal Sahu (Patwari), PW-7 Ramnath Nirmal (Patwari), PW-8 Dr. Marachand Gillharer (Head Costable), PW-9 Ajay Thakur, PW-10 Nakul Thakur (ASI). The trial Court particularly relied on the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 who are said to be eye witness of the incident. The complainant Sandhya Aadil PW-2 who has stated about the incident is partially believed by the trial Court. As per the finding recorded by the trial Court the injured has sustained the injury and there was no intention to cause death of the injured on the part of the respondent though the injury was caused by Iron rod. Though the eye witnesses as discussed in the order of the trial Court have stated regarding the incident, but the trial Court has not fully accepted there version and found that the prosecution has only been able to prove the offence to the extent of scope of Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, the finding record by the trial Court can not be said to be

¶23

¶24

contrary to the evidence laid before it. It is found that the trial Court after appreciating oral, documentary and medical evidence has rightly convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC acquitting him from the other offences as mentioned above.

¶25

In case of Jafarudheen and others Vs State of Kerala , reported in 2022 (8) SCC 440, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal in para-25 of its judgment, and has held as under :

¶26

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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.”

¶27

In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the present is not a fit case, where the application under Section 378 (3) of

¶28

¶29

Cr.P.C. be allowed.

¶30