Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jan 2024ACQA/130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this acquittal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the trial court's order acquitting three accused persons of charges related to public nuisance, criminal intimidation, and voluntary causing hurt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the respondents allowed; appeal by the State dismissed.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No.130 of 2014

¶4

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla, S/o Shri Ravindra Narayan Shukla, Aged About 60 Years R/o Kirodimal Colony, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶7

Sandeep Shukla @ Nikki, S/o Shri Rajendra Shukla, Aged About 29 Years R/o Kirodimal Colony, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶8

Amit Shukla @ Vikki, S/o Shri Rajendra Shukla, Aged About 32 Years R/o Kirodimal Colony, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant/State: Shri BP Banjare, Dy. G.A. For Respondents: Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate.

¶11

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment On Board

¶12

03.01.2024

¶13

This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.103/2013 whereby, the Respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part-I) and 323/34 IPC.

¶14

Prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident i.e.

¶15

30.12.2012 at about 1.30 in the noon, while Complainant Amarjeet

¶16

¶17

Singh Chaddha (PW-1) was sitting in the courtyard of his house, then the accused persons/Respondents came there and started to clean his boundary wall by uprooting the flower plants for organizing prayers for Lord Hanuman. It is alleged that Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chaddha (PW-1) objected them for removal of flower plants due to which, a quarrel took place between them wherein, Lucky Shukla assaulted him by using spade and other Respondents have assaulted him by using hands and fists and also threatened to kill him. Based on such allegations, FIR has been registered at PS Kotwali, District Raigarh. Injured Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chaddha (PW-1) was examined by Dr. BR Patel (PW-5), who found an abrasion on his right elbow measuring 6 cm x 4 mm, reddish in colour, which was simple in nature and a contusion was also found on his leg and he was referred for radio-logical examination.

¶18

Statement of the witnesses was recorded and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondents have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and examined one Jogender Pal Singh (DW-1), the brother-in-law of the Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chhaddha (PW-1) in their defence. After evaluation of the evidence adduced

¶19

¶20

by the prosecution, learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondents of the aforesaid charges. Hence, this Appeal.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective as such, the findings arrived at are perverse and prays to allow the Appeal and convict the accused/Respondents.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the acquittal recorded by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference.

¶23

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶24

Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chhaddha (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, while he was sitting inside his house, at noon, 10-12 members of his locality came there and started uprooting the flower plants near his door and also broken the boundary wall. He further deposed that when he came outside the house and made a protest, accused/Respondent No.1-Rajendra @ Rajjan Shukla caught hold of him and other accused Lucky Shukla has assaulted him by using spade over his right arm and also threatened to kill him for vacating the house. He further deposed that they have also abused him in filthy language, therefore, he has filed FIR (Ex.P-1).

¶25

Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chhaddha (PW-1), at para-21 of

¶26

¶27

his cross-examination, has categorically admitted that he is not aware of the names of the accused persons whether they were Nikki Shukla or Lucky Shukla though at para-25, he has categorically stated that Lucky Shukla has assaulted him by using spade due to which, he sustained a cut injury on his right arm and blood was also oozing out. He further deposed that blood stains were also present on his shirt but he has not handed over the same to the police officer during investigation.

¶28

Dr. BR Patel (PW-5) examined injured Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chhaddha (PW-1) on the date of the incident and found an abrasion on his right elbow measuring 6 cm x 4 mm, reddish in colour, which was simple in nature and also found a contusion on his leg.

¶29

The prosecution has examined other witness i.e. the wife of Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chaddha (PW-1) namely Jaswinder Kaur (PW-2), who deposed that Lucky Shukla has assaulted her husband by using spade and other accused have assaulted him by hands and fists. Gagandeep Kaur (PW-3), Son of the Complainant has also given a similar statement. No other independent witness has been examined. The brother-in-law of the Complainant Joginder Pal Singh Katiyal (DW-1) has deposed that there was a dispute with respect to vacating the house and accused/Respondent No.1-Rajendra Shukla is one of his witnesses

¶30

¶31

for the complaint which he has preferred against the Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chadda (PW-1).

¶32

Considering the aforesaid evidence as there was a previous dispute between the parties for vacating the house and further, on the date of incident, in front of the house of Complainant Amarjeet Singh Chhaddha (PW-1), for organizing prayers for Lord Hanuman, the local people came to his house as stated by him while lodging FIR and further considering that he himself could not identify as to who has assaulted him by using spade and no identification parade was conducted and also considering the manner in which the dispute occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below is a possible view as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶33

In the matter of Jafarudheen and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440, while dealing with the scope of Appeal against acquittal, the following was observed at para-25, which reads as under:-

¶34

“25. 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 termed 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.

¶35

¶36

Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶37

In view of above as also considering the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below as such, the accused/Respondents were rightly acquitted of the aforesaid charges, therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, the Appeal, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶40

Priya

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

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

Jawahar Vs Bharat and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Nilu Loniya

Ashok Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kuru and Others