State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Vasudeo @ Baso Dewangan

This acquittal appeal is filed by the State/appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge (SC & ST Act) passed in Session Trial No. 70/2015, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act, 1989”).

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2015 the complainant Mangturam Kashyap lodged a complaint at Police Station Karpawand stating that he has agricultural land and adjacent to that there is a land of the accused Vasudeo alias Baso and he used some part of his land before 5 years. Demarcation of

¶16

2

¶17

land was conducted by the complainant and on the date of incident i.e. 03.06.2015 the accused forcefully cultivated the land of the complainant. When the complainant raised objection, the accused started to abuse him by caste and threatened him for dire consequences. Thereafter, the accused ran towards the complainant to assault him holding a stick in his hand and assaulted him. When Narendra and Neelam, who were working near the place of incident intervened the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the complaint, Police Station Karpawand registered the offence under Sections 294, 447,323, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 447, 323, 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989.

¶18

On 23.09.2015, the complainant filed an application for compromise and the learned trial Court allowed the application of the complainant and thereby acquitted the respondent from the charges under Sections 294, 447, 323 and 506 of IPC and trial was conducted against the respondent under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989.

¶19

The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

3

¶21

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence passed impugned judgment dated 06.10.2015 acquitting the accused/respondent from the charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989. Hence, this appeal filed by the State/appellant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust and perverse. The learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offences charged. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court is not justified by giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions. As such, this impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.

¶24

Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

Before the learned trial Court the complainant and other witnesses stated about the assault and injuries and Dr. Kripsans (PW-10) as mentioned in the learned trial Court and in the F.I.R also supported the complainant's version and proved the medical report (Ex. P-13) but the complainant filed compromise application before the trial Court and the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from charges under

¶26

4

¶27

Sections 294, 447, 323 and 506 of IPC. In the whole statement the complainant and the other witnesses have only stated about the incident of fighting and assaulting and they have not stated about any allegation which proves the offence of Atrocity against the respondent. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the evidence of all witnesses and acquitted the respondent from the charges of Special Act.

¶28

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-

¶29

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

¶30

“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;

¶31

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶32

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

¶33

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

¶34

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to

¶35

5

¶36

reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶37

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

¶38

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa and others (supra) and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶39

12. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby

dismissed.

(Rajani Dubey)

Judge

Uttej

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Vasudeo @ Baso Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Vasudeo @ Baso Dewangan

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

Dr.puroshattam Lal Chandrakar Vs The Vice - Chancellor And Ors.

Ram Prasad Ghasia Vs Teeja Bai Sidar and Ors.

Martin Vs Khileshwar Prasad

Mithai Lal Awdheliya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Sukrita Diwakar Vs Bhagwat Shrivas

Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur Vs Yash Oberoi