Dismissed¶¶30

The State Of Chhattisgarh v. Munnilal

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jan 2024ACQA/135/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: acquittal appeal dismissed; finding affirmed as plausible, no perversity; hostile witnesses PW1-PW6 deny Naxalite link; Lorik Sena membership allegation; seizure memo Ex P5 unsigned by seizure witnesses PW5 PW6; seizure came into cloud; nine detonators, ten meters electric wires, explosive seized; Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra PW7; written permission SP Balrampur Section 16(3) CVJSA 2005; dumper JH 03 C-2902 Rajendrapur; poclain machine fired Amtahi; chargesheet; Section 313 Cr.PC false implication; Sessions Case 38/2014 Ramanujganj; Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam 2005 S.8(1)(3)(5); UAPA 1967 S.10(a)(i)(iv) S.18 S.19; Explosive Act 1884 S.9(b)(1); Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; 03.01.2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the State-appellant; acquittal of the respondent/accused stands affirmed. ¶¶30

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the State-appellant; acquittal of the respondent/accused stands affirmed.

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's acquittal resulted from failure to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective or from a perverse finding, warranting reversal and conviction of the respondent/accused on appeal. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The six material witnesses (Madan Yadav PW1, Madan Soni PW2, Manilal PW3, Anand Yadav PW4, Devendra Kumar PW5, Sundar PW6) completely turned hostile, did not support the prosecution's case, and denied giving Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7) any information connecting the respondent/accused with a Naxalite organization.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Seizure witnesses Devendra Kumar (PW5) and Sundar (PW6) did not support the seizure proceeding conducted by the Investigating Officer (vide Ex P5) and categorically deposed that they had not signed the seizure memo and no such proceeding was conducted in their presence.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The seizure conducted by the Investigation Officer came into cloud as the independent witnesses did not support it, and except the Investigating Officer's statement — which itself depended on the other witnesses — considering such evidence, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges.ratio¶¶28
The finding arrived at by the trial Court is plausible, free from infirmity or perversity, and is accordingly affirmed by this Court.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No.135/2015, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, 03.01.2024): The State of Chhattisgarh's acquittal appeal against respondent Munnilal — charged under Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam 2005 (Ss.8(1),(3),(5)), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (S.10(a)(i)(iv), Ss.18, 19) and Explosive Act, 1884 (S.9(b)(1)) — dismissed; acquittal in Sessions Case No.38/2014 (judgment dated 20.02.2015, Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj) affirmed as plausible and free from infirmity or perversity. All six material witnesses (PW1–PW6) turned hostile, denying any Naxalite connection; seizure witnesses (PW5, PW6) denied signing the seizure memo (Ex P5) or witnessing the seizure, whereby the Investigating Officer's seizure 'came into cloud' and only his statement, itself dependent on other witnesses, remained. Investigation had proceeded on written permission of the Superintendent of Police Balrampur under S.16(3) CVJSA 2005 after alleged Lorik Sena membership surfaced; nine detonators, ten metres of electric wire and explosive were seized vide Ex-P5.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 135 of 2015

¶5

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Munnilal S/o S/o Mithu Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Saruvat, Police Station Bhandariya District Gadwa Jhharkhand, At Present R/o Village Samri, Police Kusmi District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶9

………………………… For Appellant/State	---- Respondent ……………………………………………… : Mr. Anand Verma, Dy GA.
For Respondent	: None

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶11

Order On Board

¶12

03.01.2024

¶13

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2015 in Sessions Case No.38/2014 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, where by the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 8(1), (3) and (5) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam 2005 and Section 10 (a) (i) (iv) and Section 18 and 19 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 and Section 9 (b) (1) of the Explosive Act, 1884.

¶14

Prosecution case in brief is that Police Station Kusmi

¶15

¶16

situated at Naxalite affected area. On 22.10.2009, at night about 12:00 hrs, a dumper bearing registration No. JH 03 C-2902 was standing in front of RK Bauxite mines at Rajendrapur.

¶17

On 28.10.2009 at night about 11:45 hrs a poclain machine which was standing in village Amtahi was fired and destroyed by Naxalite people and during the investigation of the said incident Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7), received an information from the witnesses that the present applicant is also involved in such activities and is a member of unlawful organization of Lorik Sena. After obtaining the written permission by the Superintendent of Police Balrampur under Section 16 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam 2005 an investigation has been commenced and during the investigation from the possession of the present respondent/accused, vide (Ex-P5), nine numbers of detonators and ten meters of electric wires and the explosive were seized.

¶18

After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and during trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶19

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC stated that he

¶20

¶21

has been falsely implicated in the case and has not adduced any defence evidence. After the evidence the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the aforesaid charges, hence this Appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State/appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the finding arrived at by the trial Court is perverse and prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondent/accused.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the State/appellant at length and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The material witnesses Madan Yadav (PW1), Madan Soni (PW2), Manilal (PW3), Anand Yadav (PW4), Devendra Kumar (PW5) and Sundar (PW6) have completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and denied that they had given any information to Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7) that the respondent/accused is having any connection with any Naxalite organization.

¶25

The seizure witness Devendra Kumar (PW5) and Sundar (PW6) have also not supported the seizure proceeding conducted by the Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7), vide (Ex P5). They had categorically deposed that

¶26

¶27

they had not signed the seizure memo and in their presence no such proceeding was conducted.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, except the statement of the Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7), whose statement also depends on the statement of the other witness and that the seizure which was conducted by the Investigation Officer came into cloud as the independent witnesses have not supported the said proceedings, so considering such evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges.

¶29

The finding arrived by the trial Court is plausible one and this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the said judgment and accordingly the finding is hereby affirmed.

¶30

Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶33

Shoaib/Priyanka

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Acquittal judgment in Sessions Case No.38/2014 acquitting the respondent/accused Munnilal of the charged offences¶¶13
Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj · 20.02.2015
Prior proceeding
Prosecution case originates at Police Station Kusmi, situated in a Naxalite-affected area; on 22.10.2009 at night a dumper (Regn. No. JH 03 C-2902) stood before RK Bauxite mines, Rajendrapur¶¶16
Prior proceeding
On 28.10.2009 at night a poclain machine at village Amtahi was fired and destroyed by Naxalite people; Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7) received information from witnesses that the present applicant is also involved in such activities and is a member of unlawful organization of Lorik Sena¶¶17
Prior proceeding
With written permission obtained from the Superintendent of Police Balrampur under Section 16 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam 2005, an investigation was commenced¶¶17
Prior proceeding
During investigation, nine detonators, ten meters of electric wires and explosive were seized from the possession of the respondent/accused vide (Ex-P5)¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet filed after completion of investigation; the appellant abjured guilt and claimed to be tried¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC: falsely implicated, no defence evidence adduced¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Trial testimony: the six material witnesses Madan Yadav (PW1), Madan Soni (PW2), Manilal (PW3), Anand Yadav (PW4), Devendra Kumar (PW5) and Sundar (PW6) completely turned hostile, denying they gave Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7) any information connecting the respondent/accused with a Naxalite organization¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Seizure witnesses Devendra Kumar (PW5) and Sundar (PW6) did not support the seizure proceeding conducted by Investigating Officer Emmanuel Lakra (PW7) vide (Ex P5)¶¶25
Prior proceeding
They categorically deposed they had not signed the seizure memo and no such proceeding was conducted in their presence¶¶27

The State Of Chhattisgarh v. Munnilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Chhattisgarh v. Munnilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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.

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

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kuru and Others