State of Chhattisgarh Vs P.K. Pradeep (Died and Deleted)

Raj Kumar Dubey S/o Ram Prasad Dubey Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Service, Electrician Secl, Chhal R/o- Village And Post Dubgawa, Police Station Mangawa, District Rewa (M.P.)

¶14

Gopal Rao S/o Hiraji Rao Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Service, Secl, R/o. Kududand, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

2

¶16

Nimaichand Majhi S/o Kalipado Majhi Aged About 40 Years Occupation -Service, Sub Area Manager, Secl, Chhal R/o. Badtodiya, Puruliya, Police Station -Nituritan, District-Puruliya (W.B.)

¶17

Manish Mahajan S/o R. Kumar Aged About 26 Years Occupation Service, Secl, Chhal R/o. Papdegarh, Delhi 110082, Presently - R/o. Secl Korba, Bilaspur C.G.

¶18

Narendra Kumar Rathiya S/o Trilochan Singh Rathiya Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Service Secl Chhal R/o. Navapara Chhal, District - Raigarh C.G.

¶19

A.K. Vishwas S/o Late A.N. Vishwas Aged About 52 Years Occupation Service Secl Chhal R/o. Baganpura Police StationBarachhal 24 Pargana (W.B.) Presently Secl Bijuri District -Shahdol (M.P.)

¶20

Bhola Prasad Tiwari S/o Rajroop Tiwari Aged About 29 Years Occupation Service Secl Chhal R/o. Village And Post Palavliya Police Station Samapur District Satna (M.P.)

¶21

D.L. Gwalvanshi S/o B.L. Gwalvanshi Aged About 31 Years Occupation Service Secl Chhal, R/o Village Gurur District Durg (C.G.)

¶22

Rajesh Verma S/o R.N.P Verma Aged About 26 Years Occupation Service R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶23

Kaushlendra Prasad S/o Mahesh Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶24

3

¶25

K.K. Sharma S/o K.S. Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶26

Devashish Chakravarti (Died And Deleted) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-09-2024)

¶27

Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o D.P. Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Secl Colony R/o Navapara Chhal , District - Raigarh C.G.

¶28

Tapan Ghosh S/o N.L. Ghosh Aged About 35 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶29

Manoj Kumar Verma (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-07-2025.

¶30

M. Shrinivas S/o M.S.R. Murty Aged About 28 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶31

K. Prabhakar S/o Prabhakar T. Aged About 31 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶32

Madan Mohan Mahant S/o B.D. Mahant Aged About 28 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶33

N. Venu S/o N.B. Krishnamurty Aged About 29 Years R/o Navapara Chhal District Raigarh

¶34

K.K. Singh S/o Ramnaresh Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Mining Sardar Chhal Raigarh (C.G.)

¶35

Jugul Rao S/o Anhach Rao Aged About 26 Years R/o. Dobhanara Mand Secl Colony Police Station Chhal Raigarh

¶36

4

¶37

Stanis Lal Minj S/o Joseph Minj Aged About 56 Years R/o. Bedhama Police Station Kurdeg District Bihar

¶38

Munna Singh (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-022025.

¶39

		... Respondents
For Appellant	:	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate

¶40

Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶41

Judgment on Board 04.12.2025

¶42

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶43

This acquittal appeal preferred by the State arises out of the judgment dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 81/2001, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149, 294, and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).

¶44

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 Moti Kumar, Regional Secretary of the Coal Workers’ Union at SECL, Raigarh, submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police alleging that the Manager and office-bearers of the RKKMS (INTUC) Union, who were part of the staff at the Dharam Mine, were conspiring to kill him. According to the complaint, on 30.04.1997, PW-1 Moti Kumar had an altercation with Majhi

¶45

5

¶46

Sahib, Manager of the Dharam Mine, regarding which he made a report at the police station as well as to the higher authorities of SECL. He was informed that the matter would be considered the next morning when he reached the Dharam Mine at around 8:00 a.m. On 01.05.1997, at about 8:30 a.m., while PW-1 Moti Kumar was proceeding towards the Dharam Mine, he met his brother PW-4 Jyotikumar on the way and took him along. Both reached the mine premises, where PW-1 again engaged in a heated argument with Manager Majhi. During this altercation, Engineer A.K. Vishwas allegedly informed the police and instructed the security guard posted at the Dharam Gate not to allow anyone to leave the premises until the police arrived. Thereafter, PW-1 Moti Kumar and PW-4 Jyotikumar sat under a Mahua tree. PW-1 asked PW-4 to call the Sarpanch of village Aidu. However, when PW-4 attempted to leave on his motorcycle, the accused persons allegedly stopped him at the gate, forcing him to return. Soon thereafter, other persons arrived at the spot and allegedly shouted: “Maar do ise, khatam kar do.” The group members then assaulted both PW-1 Moti Kumar and PW-4 Jyotikumar using wires, sticks, batons, tyre pieces, fists, kicks, and shoes, causing both to fall unconscious. During the incident, PW-6 Surendra Singh Udia gave them water. Witnesses PW-2 Mithailal and PW-3 Ganga Ram were present nearby but fled from the spot out of fear upon witnessing the assault. The written complaint lodged by PW-4 Jyotikumar was initially recorded as an unnumbered

¶47

6

¶48

complaint at Chandrashekharpur inside the Dharam Incline (Ex. P/6). It was later registered as FIR No. 50/1997 (Ex. P/78) at Police Station Chhal. During investigation, the caste certificate of PW-1 Moti Kumar (Ex. P/18) was seized. Both injured persons were sent for medical examination. Dr. B.P. Kurre (PW-5) examined PW-4 Jyotikumar and gave report Ex. P/2, noting multiple injuries caused by a hard and blunt object within 3–4 hours, all simple in nature. He also examined PW-1 Moti Kumar and issued report Ex. P/3, finding several injuries caused by a hard and blunt object within 4–6 hours. A spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses recorded, and the accused persons were arrested during the course of investigation.

¶49

After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶50

The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 22 documents Exs.P-1 to P-22. However, the accused persons, in support of their defence, have examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Dr. G.N. Tiwari and DW-2 Dr. A.M. Gupta and exhibited 9 documents i.e. D-1 to D-9.

¶51

The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment

¶52

7

¶53

acquitted the accused persons / respondents herein of the said charges leveled against them.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents by recording perverse findings. He would further contend that there is ample evidence on record to establish that, on the date of the incident, the respondents formed an unlawful assembly, threatened PW-1 Moti Kumar and PW-4 Jyoti Kumar, and assaulted them, causing multiple injuries and despite such clear evidence, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons without appreciating the material on record in its correct perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶55

Learned counsel for the respondents/accused would support the impugned judgment and submit that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the injured witnesses, which make their version unreliable. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of a brutal assault by an unlawful assembly armed with sticks, wires, and other objects. The injuries sustained were simple in nature and

¶56

8

¶57

inconsistent with the manner of assault as alleged. The prosecution also failed to establish that the respondents were members of any unlawful assembly or that they shared a common object to commit the alleged offence. The trial Court, after a careful and reasoned analysis of the evidence, recorded findings of acquittal which are neither perverse nor illegal. It is therefore submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶58

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶59

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶60

“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 terms 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

¶61

9

¶62

rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶63

In the matter of Kali Ram vs State of H.P.¹ , the Supreme Court has held in para 25 which reads as under:-

¶64

“25.Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.”

¶65

The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its 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:-

¶66

"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:-

¶67

1 (1973) 2 SCC 808

¶68

10

¶69

(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;

¶70

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

¶71

(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;

¶72

(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;

¶73

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to 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;

¶74

(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."

¶75

The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, concluded that the prosecution case rests mainly on the testimonies of the injured witnesses, PW-1 Jyotikumar and PW-2 Motikumar, who alleged that a large group of

¶76

11

¶77

mine officials and staff members assaulted them with wires, batons, sticks, tyre pieces and other objects. However, their statements suffer from material omissions, improvements, and inconsistencies with respect to the identity of the assailants, the manner of assault, and the specific roles attributed to each accused. Although the witnesses claimed that about 15–16 persons participated in the assault, they failed to give a consistent or specific account of the individual acts of the accused persons. The two witnesses stated to be present at the scene, PW-2 Mithailal and PW-3 Ganga Ram, did not support the prosecution and admitted that they fled from the spot due to fear. No other independent witness, though admittedly available, was examined. The medical evidence also does not fully support the prosecution version, as most of the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature, and only one grievous injury was noted, which is inconsistent with the allegation of a mass assault by several armed persons. The prosecution further failed to recover any of the alleged weapons or produce any forensic or corroborative evidence linking the accused to the occurrence. The FIR was initially prepared as an unnumbered complaint inside the mine premises and later converted into a formal report at the police station, without any satisfactory explanation for this delay or procedural irregularity, thereby casting doubt on the genuineness and spontaneity of the prosecution case. In view of these deficiencies, the learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond

¶78

12

¶79

reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible and reasonable one, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.

¶80

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favouring the accused, reversal of the findings of acquittal by the Appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶81

Accordingly, this appeal by the State / appellant against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is hereby dismissed.

¶82

Sd/- Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶83

Vishakha

State of Chhattisgarh v. P.K. Pradeep (Died and Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. P.K. Pradeep (Died and Deleted)

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

Ajay Agrawal Vs Satish Agrawal

Gulabchandra Samual Vs Manish Sharma ( Dead) through Jyoti Sharma

Jagdish Prasad Soni Vs Ravishankar Gupta

Dharmendra Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Singh Suryavanshi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

The State Of C.g. Vs Santosh Sen and Ors.