Dismissed¶47

Mohanlal v. Pyarelal and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2024ACQA/131/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court acquittal appeal by complainant dismissed at motion stage; scope of appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; double presumption of innocence on acquittal; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 applied; contradictions and omissions in prosecution witnesses; unproved daily diary Entry No.21; material improvement and roping-in of accused; place-of-incident discrepancy; land/cultivation dispute over Kotwari land; IPC Ss.147, 452, 323 r/w 149; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act S.3(1-10); JMFC Raipur RCC No.31/2011; Pandariya, Kabirdham; delay condonation of 270 days; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

What did the court decide?

Considering the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal (barred by 270 days) is condoned and the matter is heard and decided finally. ¶24

Mohanlal Vs Pyarelal and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 270 days in filing the acquittal appeal should be condoned (IA No.1/2015). +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

Considering the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal (barred by 270 days) is condoned and the matter is heard and decided finally.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Overall analysis of the evidence shows discrepancies regarding the number and names of the accused and the place of incident; the complainant did not prove the report of his information to the police (daily diary Entry No.21 naming only two persons); there were material improvements in evidence and so many persons were roped in, creating serious doubt as to the origin of the incident; hence the complainant failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶42

Key takeaways

Applying the settled principles in Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 (an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and the appellate court must be relatively slow in reversing an acquittal), this Court holds that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is a possible one.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 131 of 2015) by complainant Mohanlal against the judgment dated 11.08.2014 of the JMFC, Raipur in Regular Criminal Case No.31/2011 acquitting nine respondents of charges under Sections 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 IPC for the alleged armed entry into his house and assault at Pandariya on 11.10.2009. Delay of 270 days condoned (IA No.1/2015). The Court found discrepancies in the number and names of the accused and the place of incident; the independent witness (PW-2) placed the incident outside near a shop and named only seven of fifteen-odd assailants; the complainant's police information (daily diary Entry No.21, naming only two persons) was not proved; there were material improvements and roping-in of many persons amid a cultivation dispute over adjoining Kotwari land, creating serious doubt as to the origin of the incident, so the complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Applying Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 (double presumption in favour of the accused; appellate court to be slow in reversing acquittal), the trial Court's finding was held to be a possible one and the Acquittal Appeal was dismissed at motion stage itself. (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; 08/01/2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 131 of 2015

¶5

Mohanlal S/o Domraram Satnami Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria, Police Station And Tah. Pandaria District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶6

--- Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Pyarelal S/o Juthel Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria, Police Station And Tah. Pandaria District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Maniram Sahu S/o Juthel Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Gorelal Sahu S/o Juthel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Shatruhan Sahu S/o Gorelal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Goluram Sahu S/o Pyarelal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Pakluram Sahu S/o Maniram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Gayatribai Sahu W/o Pyarelal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Mathura Bai Sahu W/o Pyarelal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Aghanbai Sahu W/o Maniram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sisodia Nagar, Ward No. 13, Pandaria Police Station And Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents.

¶17

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶18

For Appellant : Ms. Sofia Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate.

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Judgment On Board

¶21

08/01/2024

¶22

It is pertinent to mention here that though on 29.07.2015 leave to appeal was granted in the matter but application for condonation of delay (IA No.1/2015) is still pending as the appeal is barred by 270 days.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent has formally opposed the said application.

¶24

In view of above and considering the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is heard and decided finally.

¶25

The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Regular Criminal Case No.31/2011, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶26

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.10.2009 at about 7 am when complainant Mohanlal (PW-1) along with his son Devgan (PW-3) and others were staying inside their house, the accused persons forcefully entered the house of the complainant and due to previous enmity, started assaulting him by using club and also hurled filthy abuses on him, due to which, the complainant sustained injuries. Thereafter, the complainant gave said information at Police Station Pandariya and also gave intimation before AJAK Police Station, Kawardha and Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, however, no action was taken against the accused persons. Therefore, he has filed complaint case before learned JMFC, Pandariya, Kabirdham on 13.11.2009 under Sections 324, 323, 506 (B), 452 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1-10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

¶27

¶28

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prima facie, after examining the complaint and the witnesses, the complaint has been registered against the accused under Sections 323, 506 (B) & 452/34 of the IPC. After recording the evidence and submission of the parties, learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 of the IPC.

¶29

The complainant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1, independent witness Smt. Chaiti Bai (PW-2) and Devgan (PW-3), son of the complainant. On the other hand, the respondents/accused denied the charges levelled against them and in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶30

Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondents from all the charges by the judgment impugned. Thereafter, the complainant had preferred the revision before Sessions Judge, Kabirdham on 03.09.2014 which was registered as Criminal Revision No.38/2014 and vide order dated 05.02.2015 learned Sessions Judge observed that as per Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal, an appeal lies and the revision is not maintainable and dismissed the revision of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective because the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence of independent witness Smt. Chaitibai (PW-2) and Devgan (PW3). She would submit that after lodging the information at Police Station Pandariya on 11.10.2009, complainant Mohanlal (PW-1) was referred for medical examination and during medical examination 5 injuries were found on the body of the complainant i.e. contusion on the left shoulder joint (two

¶32

¶33

in numbers and each about 4 cm long and 2 cm broad above downward), contusion on the left forearm (5 cm x 1 mm long), contusion on the back of the right shoulder (joint region of scapula 10 cm long x 1 m broad), contusion on left middle thigh and swelling in the left middle thigh. However, injuries were described as simple in nature. Learned counsel submits that considering all these aspects, the appeal be allowed and judgment of acquittal be set-aside.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that on the date of incident, son of the accused Pyarelal namely Rajkumar has given intimation at Police Station Pandariya that Mohanlal on the same day at about 7 AM after consuming liquor abused him and also tried to assault him. He would submit that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that there is land dispute between the parties which is adjoining to the house of the respondents. He would submit that though the complainant in the report deposed that he has named 8 persons at the time of lodging of FIR but no such report has been proved and the other witnesses have deposed that 100 club injuries have been inflicted to the complainant. Further, Smt. Chaitibai (PW-2), who has seen the incident, categorically deposed that at the time of incident, the complainant came from the house, however, different story has been narrated by the complainant Mohanlal (PW-1) that accused persons came to their house and assaulted him thereafter, he came outside the house. So, looking to these infirmities, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. He would also submit that the MLC has not been proved and complainant closed their evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

¶37

Complainant/injured Mohanlal (PW-1), in his evidence, has categorically stated that at the time of lodging of information before Police Station, he has named 8 persons but he has not mentioned such names in the report before the Police and same has also not been proved and the complaint has been filed against 9 persons. Further, Smt. Chaitibai (PW-2) the independent witness, at paragraph 2 of her evidence, deposed that near the shop of Dhananjay, about 15-16 persons have assaulted Mohan (PW1), however, she has named only 7 persons i.e. Pyare, Gore, Mani, Golu, Aghan Bai, Gaytri Bai and wife of Gore and she is not aware as to why the incident occurred. Furthermore, the information given by Mohanlal (PW-1) which has been recorded in the daily diary vide Entry No.21 has not been proved by the complainant and in the said report only two persons have been named i.e. Pyarelal Sahu and Mani Sahu who raised the quarrel with the complainant as to why he had cultivated the land of Sabana Bai Kotwarin and beaten him by using club however, the complainant has not named any other person in the said entry.

¶38

10.Smt. Chaitibai (PW-2) categorically deposed that when she was taking tap water, she saw that Mohan (PW-1) came from his house and accused persons also came from their house. However, complainant Mohanlal (PW1) stated differently that accused persons have entered his house and assaulted him and to save himself, he ran outside the house. Further, the information that accused persons have entered inside his house has not been stated by the complainant in the report before the Police. The other witness namely Devgan (PW-3) is real son of the complainant and he has given similar statement as given by PW-1.

¶39

Overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence shows that there are various discrepancy regarding number and names of the accused and place of the incident. Further, there was dispute regarding the cultivation on the Kotwari

¶40

¶41

land which was adjoining the house of the accused persons. The complainant has also not proved the report in which he has given the information to the police and before the Court also there are material improvement in the evidence and so many persons have been roped in the alleged incident, which created serious doubt with regard to origin of the incident.

¶42

12.In such backdrop, the complainant has failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶43

13.Moreover, in respect of scope of appeal against acquittal following was

¶44

observed in the matter of Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 vide para 25 :

¶45

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

¶46

14.In view of the aforesaid settled principles and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is a possible one.

¶47

In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed at

¶48

motion stage itself.

¶49

Ajay

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Mohanlal v. Pyarelal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal v. Pyarelal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Thakur

Manharan Lal @ Santosh Vs Smt. Pinki Singh

Anurag Agrawal Vs Sourabh Mishra

Firendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of C.G. Vs Babadeen Malik

Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs Amit Lilhare