State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Nilu Loniya

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No.261 of 2017

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nilu Loniya S/o Late Dudanram Loniya Aged About 26 Years R/ o Village Ghutku, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Dhannu Loniya S/o Late Dudanram Loniya Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Ghutku, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Kedar Loniya S/o Badri Prasad Loniya, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Ghutku, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant/State: Shri BP Banjare, Dy. G.A. For Respondents: Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate.

¶10

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

¶11

02.01.2024

¶12

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.82/2016 whereby, the Respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 324 IPC.

¶13

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.08.2015, Ku. Pinky Lonia (PW-2) has lodged merg intimation (Ex.P-1) at 8.40 am

¶14

2

¶15

along with her brother-in-law Sarju Prasad (PW-14) and one Bihari Loniya (PW-13) belonging to the village stating that on 01.08.2015 at about 6.45 pm, when she along with her father Sanath Loniya (PW-4) and other sisters namely deceased Susheela and injured Keerti Loniya (PW-1) was going to the fields of Kedar Loniya for weeding in the fields, her sisters Susheela and Keerti Loniya (PW1) came in contact with the fencing wire through which electricity was passing due to which, Susheela got stuck to the fencing wire and died while she was being taken to the house and injured Keerti Loniya (PW-1) was hospitalized at Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur.

¶16

During investigation, naksha panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) and spot map (Ex.P-4) were prepared. Statement of the witnesses was recorded. Deceased Susheela was subjected to post-mortem examination vide Ex.P-9 by Dr. RK Markam (PW-9), who has opined that cause of death was cardiac arrest by electric shock and burnt marks were present on the body of Keerti Loniya, who was examined vide Ex.P-10.

¶17

After completing of investigation, it has been revealed that the accused persons have fenced the said wire through which electricity was passing and accordingly, charge sheet was filed and committal of the case was made. During trial, the Respondents have abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. After evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court has

¶18

3

¶19

acquitted the Respondents of the aforesaid charges. Hence, this Appeal.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He, however, fairly submits that there is no direct evidence available on record against the person who is responsible for making the electricity pass through the fencing wire.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that there is no clear evidence in the present case and even, no expert from the Electricity Department has been examined, therefore, the acquittal recorded by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference.

¶22

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

Injured Keerti Loniya (PW-1) and other witnesses i.e. Pinky Loniya (PW-2), Sukhan Bai (PW-3), Basant Kumar Loniya (PW-5) and Manoj Loniya (PW-6) have categorically deposed in their statements that they are not aware as to who made the electricity pass through the fencing wire and only on the basis of presumption as the incident occurred in the fields of the accused persons, they have been roped in the instant case. However, no expert from the Electricity Department has been examined, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below is a possible

¶24

4

¶25

view.

¶26

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:-

¶27

“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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶28

10. In view of above as also considering the evidence available

¶29

on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below has rightly acquitted the Respondents of the aforesaid charges, therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶32

Priya

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Nilu Loniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Nilu Loniya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhavendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhammanlal Yadav and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jawahar Vs Bharat and Ors.

Ashok Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kapil Dev Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh