Shakuntala Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - Kamal Kishore Sharma @ Kamlesh Sharma S/o Late Motilal Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Hasua, Police Station- Gidhauri, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Smt. Gayatri Sharma W/o Kamal Kishore Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Hasua, Police Station- Gidhauri, District- BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate

¶16

For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, PL

¶17

2

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶19

Judgment On Board

¶20

02/09/2025

¶21

1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.25/2016, whereby, respondents No.2 & 3 have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 294 & 323 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’).

¶22

2. Prosecution case in brief, is that, Shakuntala (PW-4) lodged a written complaint (Ex-P/6) at Police Station Gidhauri, District BalodabazarBhatapara making an averment inter alia that she was holding the post of Sarpanch at Village Panchayat Hasua. As per the directions of the Chief Executive Officer, Kasdol, she lodged an FIR against the respondents/accused namely Gayatri Sharma and Kamal Kishore Sharma, at Police Station Gidhauri. After lodging of the said FIR, continuous dispute arose in the village. She further stated that other coaccused, Rajat Kumar Sahu, who was the operator of the village tap water system, falsely implicated her in a fabricated case by creating a fake receipt bearing her forged signature and seal, and withdrew an amount of Rs.1,08,100/- from the Panchayat fund. On the date of the incident, i.e. 24.03.2016, a monthly meeting was held at Village Panchayat. During this meeting, the complainant questioned Rajat

¶23

3

¶24

Kumar Sahu about the forged receipt. This caused the respondents/accused and co-accused Rajat Kumar Sahu to become agitated. They allegedly abused the complainant in the name of mother and also used caste based slurs and co-accused Rajat Kumar Sahu also assaulted her.

¶25

3. Based on the aforesaid information, FIR (Ex-P/7) was registered. Crime details form and spot sketch map was prepared vide Ex-P/8. Patwari, Dinesh Patel prepared Map vide Ex-P/9. Caste certificate (Ex-P/11A) of the complainant was seized vide Ex-P/11. The Complainant was medically examined by Dr. B.P. Baghel (PW-3), who submitted his report (Ex-P/5) and found an abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the left elbow joint. She also complained of pain in her left ear. The complainant was further examined by Dr. Abdul Wasim (PW-9) at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur vide Ex-P/12 and referred her to the ENT Surgeon with regard to complain of pain in her left ear. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

¶26

4. During the course of trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The respondents/accused, in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused persons have also taken the defence that they had filed a complaint against the complainant before the Collector and SubDivisional Officer (SDO), and as a result of such complaint, Shakuntala

¶27

4

¶28

(PW-4) was removed from the post of Sarpanch and therefore, due to this enmity, the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of their defence, the respondents/accused have exhibited 5 documents vide Ex-D/1 to Ex-D/5.

¶29

5. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, convicted co-accused Rajat for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of the Act, 1989 and acquitted him of the charge under Section 294 of the IPC. So far as respondents No.2 & 3 are concerned, they were acquitted of all the charges as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the present Appeal has been preferred.

¶30

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. He submits that respondents No.2 & 3 not only abused the complainant in filthy language but also made caste-based remarks with the intent to insult and humiliate her. Furthermore, Gorelal Sahu (PW-5) and Motilal Sahu (PW-7) have supported the version of the complainant. Lastly, he submits that the Appeal may be allowed and the respondents/accused be convicted accordingly.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not preferred any Appeal.

¶32

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶33

9. Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-1), Secretary of the Village Panchayat, deposed

¶34

5

¶35

that on the date of the incident, a meeting was scheduled in Village Hasua. At the relevant time, complainant- Shakuntala (PW-4) was serving as the Sarpanch, while the respondent/accused Kamal Kishore was serving as Upsarpanch, and his wife, Gayatri, was also a Panch of the village. During the meeting, a dispute arose between the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch in respect of the expenditure of the Village Panchayat fund, particularly with regard to the expenditure of the tap water system. The above witness further deposed that during the meeting, the complainant slapped co-accused Rajat, who was the operator of the tap water system since she was not satisfied with his explanation. He further stated that both Rajat and the complainant slapped each other. He also deposed that there were two factions in the village, one of which was led by complainant Shakuntala Bai and Gorelal (PW-5), Shailendra and Sadanand (PW-12) were her supporters. He also deposed that at the time of the meeting, these three persons were initially standing outside the Village Panchayat building, but when the dispute escalated, they entered the building and assaulted Rajat and other Panchayat members namely Chetan Karsh, Kamalnarayan Sahu and Navalkishore, who were present there, intervened to stop them.

¶36

10. Upon perusal of the written complaint (Ex-P/6), it is evident that there is no averment indicating that the present accused persons, in any manner, provoked Rajat Kumar to assault the complainant. Furthermore, in her court statement, the complainant appears to have exaggerated her version as compared to her written complaint (Ex-P/6). Moreover, there are also material contradictions and omissions in her police statement (Ex-D/3).

¶37

6

¶38

11. In view of the above, and considering the existence of factionalism within the Village Panchayat, it appears that the main dispute originated from a receipt filed by the co-accused, through which the complainant allegedly withdrew certain amount from the Village Panachayat fund. However, the complainant alleged that co-accused, Rajat Kumar, fabricated a forged receipt regarding such expenditure. During the meeting when the complainant, who was also the Sarpanch, did not accept the explanation offered, a quarrel began as the accused persons and the complainant belong to opposing factions within the Village Panchayat. Furthermore, Kamal Kishore was holding the post of Upsarpanch and he was also having a political rivalry with the complainant.

¶39

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon minute examination of the evidence, particularly the statements of Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-1), the Village Panchayat Secretary, and further considering the statements of Shivkumar (PW-2), Janki Bai (PW-6) and Motilal (PW-7), it is explicit that none of these witnesses supported the allegation that the accused persons abused the complainant.

¶40

13. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were

¶41

7

¶42

perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law.

¶43

14. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of 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 favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and

¶44

8

¶45

convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

¶46

15. Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

¶47

16. From scanning of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one.

¶48

17. Resultantly, the Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶51

Priyanka

Shakuntala Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Late K.B. Cherian Vs Avinash Kaling

Late K.B.Cherian Vs Avinash Kaling

Pandit Vinod Chaturvedi (Choubey) Vs Shailesh Songade

Pragati Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Vs a. Channeya

Pragati Mahila Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs a. Channeya

Sushma Singh Vs Rekha Soni