State appeal against acquittal of four accused of caste-based assault. The High Court found major contradictions in the complainant's statement and FIR with no independent corroboration, and held that a possible view taken by the trial court on evidence cannot be disturbed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 462 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : None.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board
(05.02.2024) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
2
(b) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(11), 3(1)(10) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3
in the case.
4
impugned judgment.
11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh v. State , [AIR 1952 SC 52] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed: (AIR p.54, para 7)
"7.........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very
5
substantial and compelling reasons."
12. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:
(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal,
(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and
(iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is
6
inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
H.L. Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal given contradictions in prosecution witness testimony.
Whether the prosecution proved the offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Another vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶9
(2014) 5 SCC 730 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh
Sudershan Yadav
Suresh Yadav
Banwali Yadav
Parsan
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
