Dismissed

Rajkumar Deshmukh v. Ajay Kumar Jain

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jun 2024CRR/510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of complainant's appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC upholding acquittal for offences under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. Prosecution witnesses did not support the incident; the High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajkumar Deshmukh Vs Ajay Kumar Jain — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No. 510 of 2024

¶4

Rajkumar Deshmukh S/o Shri M.L. Deshmukh, Aged About 40 Years (Presently), R/o Polytechnic Aawasiya Parishar Jaawanga, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - Ajay Kumar Jain S/o K.C. Jain, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Polytechnic Aawasiya Parishar Jaawanga, P.S. Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Shri Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Rashi Tiwari, PL

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

11.06.2024

¶13

Heard on IA-1 of 2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision.

¶14

On due consideration, IA-1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay of 268 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.

¶15

This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada in CRA-18 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed under Section 372 of the CrPC by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2023 passed in Criminal Case-949 of 2022 by the learned CJM, South Bastar, Dantewada, is dismissed.

¶16

Crr 510 of 2024

¶17

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that, on the written complaint of one Raj Kumar Deshmukh, Complainant, the FIR under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC was registered against respondent-1, in which it is alleged that on 22.08.2022 at about 12.15 pm, when he was in his Office, he heard a noice of altercation between Ajay Kumar Jain and Astha Singh. When he went to the place of occurrence, respondent-1 abused and threatened him. Accused/respondent-1 had threatened the applicant earlier also, and then he lodged the report.

¶19

On the report of complainant, respondent-1 was prosecuted for the offence of Section 294 and 506-B of the IPC. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, recording the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, of respondent1/accused, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.04.2023, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

¶20

The judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2023 was challenged by the complainant before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada by filing an appeal under the Proviso of Section 372 of the CrPC. The said appeal came up for hearing on 07.02.2024, and after hearing the parties, learned first Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, which is under challenge in the present revision.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the learned Courts below have erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. There is sufficient evidence against respondent-1/accused to convict him for the alleged offence. Complainant himself has made statement against respondent-1 accused, which does not require to be corroborated by any other evidence. Even if there

¶22

Crr 510 of 2024

¶23

¶24

are minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence, the same would not be given any benefit to the accused. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, and have acquitted respondent-1 without considering the material available in the case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶26

From bare perusal of FIR, as well as the deposition of the applicant (PW1), who is the complainant in the case, this Court finds that there is contradiction in between these two evidences available in the case. In the FIR the complainant simply says that when he reached at the place of occurrence, respondent-1 abused him and threatened him, whereas in his evidence made before the Court while he was examined, he exaggerated his statement with that of his written report and FIR.

¶27

PW2 Astha Singh, with whom the altercation took place with the respondent-1/accused, and the complainant went to the spot to pacify them, has turned hostile and not stated anything about the incident. Had there been any incident occurred in presence of PW2 as alleged by the complainant in his report and FIR, she would have definitely narrated the same but she totally denied the occurrence of any incident.

¶28

PW3, Ashish Kumar Tiwari, PW4 Vaibhav Pratap, and PW5 Dr Mukesh Thakur are the Lecturers and Principal of the Polytechnic College, where the incident is said to have occurred but they also not supported case of the prosecution, and said that no incident was taken place on the alleged date and time between the complainant and accused.

¶29

Crr 510 of 2024

¶30

¶31

Considering the overall evidence produced by the parties, learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offence. The facts of the case have been duly considered by both the Courts below. The scope of revision against the finding recorded by both the Courts below are very limited, further, the learned appellate Court has considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Shyam Bihari and others reported in (2023) 8 SCC 197, in which it is held that — “Scope of interference against the acquittal is not permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial Court is plausible, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and is not vitiated by the ignorance of misleading of relevant evidence on record”.

¶32

Herein the present case, the judgment passed by the learned Court below is based on proper appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse, nor contrary to the record.

¶33

There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, the Revision fails and it is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶36

padma

Rajkumar Deshmukh v. Ajay Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajkumar Deshmukh v. Ajay Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Munna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Guldasta Sawai @ Gunja Vs Manish Sawai

Ajay Ratnani Vs Smt. Varsha Ratnani

Raghunandan Vs Mr. Vidya Nath Jha

Amar Pratap Singh Vs Smt. Chandan Sanjay Tripathi

Smt. Sudha Singh Chauhan Vs Ramsanehi Loniya