Dismissed¶38

Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2025ACQA/621/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 621 of 2019; decided 17/09/2025 by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; acquittal appeal by complainant Chandra Prabha Rathore against acquittal of Savita Das under Sections 356 and 379 IPC; eyewitness credibility, interested witness, unproved seizure memo Ex. P-8 and identification memo Ex. P-6, belated FIR/complaint of 25 days; appeal dismissed at motion stage; no costs; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Dilip Singh Rathore (PW-2), husband of the complainant, is not an eyewitness; he reached the spot only after hearing the hue and cry, having admitted in cross-examination that he did not see the accused snatching the bunch of keys. ¶32

Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court acquitting respondent No.2 of offences under Sections 356 and 379 IPC suffers from perversity or illegality, and whether the instant acquittal appeal deserves admission.

¶37

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Devendra Singh (PW-3), Rukmani Sahu @ Nanki (PW-5) and Bharat Shekhar (PW-6) did not see the incident and only heard about the snatching; Pramila Shekhar (PW-4), who supported the complainant, is an interested witness as she had gone along with the complainant.

¶33

Key takeaways

Seizure memo (Ex. P-8) and identification memo (Ex. P-6) cannot be held proved because neither Prahalad Thethwar (who prepared the identification memo) nor witnesses Teekaram Thethwar and Kheersagar Thethwar were examined by the prosecution.ratio¶34
The written complaint was filed about 25 days after the incident and the reason for the delay was not found sufficient; the prosecution evidence being very weak, the accused cannot be convicted.ratio¶35
The impugned appellate judgment does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, and the acquittal appeal lacks merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal (ACQA) by the complainant against the judgment of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, whereby the JMFC Raigarh conviction of respondent No.2 under Sections 356 and 379 IPC (snatching of a bunch of keys outside the Civil Court, Raigarh on 19.09.2016) was set aside. The High Court held: (i) PW-2, the complainant's husband, was not an eyewitness, having reached the spot after hearing the hue and cry; (ii) PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 did not see the incident, and PW-4 was an interested witness; (iii) seizure memo (Ex. P-8) and identification memo (Ex. P-6) were unproved as the preparing/identifying witnesses were not examined; and (iv) the written complaint was belated by about 25 days with insufficient explanation, making the prosecution evidence very weak. Finding no perversity or illegality in the appellate acquittal, the Single Judge dismissed the acquittal appeal at the motion stage, with no order as to costs, and directed return of the records of the courts below.

2025:CGHC:47707

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 621 of 2019

¶6

1 - Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore W/o Shri Dilip Singh Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o Satti Gudi Chowk, Masta Gali, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Smt. Savita Das W/o Shri Manish Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Water World, Turripara, Police Station Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

( Cause title, as taken from CIS )

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

17/09/2025

¶16

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶17

¶18

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG), in Criminal Appeal No.197/2018, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as “JMFC Raigarh”) in Criminal Case No.1017/2016 has been set aside and respondent No.2 herein has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 356 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The trial Court convicted the respondent No.2 herein under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I. and 1 year S.I. respectively and also imposed fine of Rs.500 for each offence, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month SI and 2 months SI respectively.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that there was property dispute between the appellant/complainant (henceforth referred to as “complainant”) and the respondent No.2/accused (henceforth referred to as “accused”), to which, a case was pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raigarh. On 19.09.2016, when complainant had gone to attend hearing in aforesaid case in the Civil Court, Raigarh and she got stationed her Scooty in the premises of Civil Court, at that point of time, accused went there and forcibly snatched a bunch of keys from complainant, which containing key of her Scooty, house and school and thereby accused committed alleged crime. In this regard, the complainant submitted written complaint (Ex. P-1) on 13.10.2016 in police station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, based on which, FIR (Ex. P- 2) was registered, spot map (Ex. P-3) was prepared, R.C. book of

¶20

¶21

Activa Scooty was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-4), panchnama (Ex. P-5) was prepared and a bunch of keys was seized from accused Smt. Savita Das, which was got identified by complainant vide identification memo (Ex. P-6). Witnesses were examined by the police and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC was filed against accused as Criminal Case No.1017/2016.

¶22

Charges under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC were framed against accused by JMFC, Raigarh. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, statement of accused Smt. Savita Das was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’), in which, she submitted that she has been falsely implicated. She has not examined any witness in her defence.

¶23

Learned trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by prosecution, held the accused Smt. Savita Das guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC and sentenced her, as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph.

¶24

Being aggrieved, accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C before the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, who, after hearing both the parties, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, which has given rise to filing of the instant acquittal appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that on the date of incident, at about 4.00 pm, when the complainant Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore was present in front of notary room of the premises of Civil Court, Raigarh, keeping bunch of keys in her hand, at

¶26

¶27

that time, accused Smt. Savita Das came there and forcibly snatched that bunch of keys from complainant Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore (PW-1) and fled from the spot. This fact has been proved by Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore (PW-1) in her deposition, which has also been supported by her husband Dilip Singh Rathore (PW-2) and Pramila Shekhar (PW-4), who were also present there. The seizure of bunch of keys from the accused has also been duly proved vide seizure memo (Ex. P-8) by Assistant Sub-Inspector Kusum Kaiwartya (PW-8) and their statement has not been controverted in crossexamination. Relying on that deposition, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted accused. However, the learned Appellate Court, without assigning any cogent reason, has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused. Hence, he prays that the instant appeal may be admitted for hearing.

¶28

Per contra , learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Though in instant case, complainant Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, accused had snatched bunch of keys from her and fled from the spot, which has also been supported by her husband Dilip Singh Rathore (PW-2) and Pramila Shekhar (PW-4), but Dilip Singh Rathore (PW-2) has deposed that after hearing hue and cry made by complainant, he and other witnesses went on the spot. He has also admitted in para 6

¶31

¶32

of his cross-examination that he had not seen accused snatching bunch of keys from complainant, though, he had stated that he had seen accused running away. Thus, he is not an eye witness, rather, he reached on the spot after hearing hue and cry.

¶33

Devendra Singh (PW-3), Rukmani Sahu @ Nanki (PW-5) and Bharat Shekhar (PW-6) were also present on the spot, but as per their deposition, they have not seen the incident, rather they have heard about the snatching of bunch of keys of complainant. Though, Pramila Shekhar (PW-4) had supported the deposition of complainant, but as per her statement, she is interested witness as she went along with complainant.

¶34

As per the case of prosecution and the deposition of ASI Kusum Kaiwartya (PW-8), a bunch of keys was seized from the accused vide seizure memo (Ex. P-8). The said bunch of keys was identified by complainant vide identification memo (Ex. P-6) prepared by Prahalad Thethwar. But, except complainant, neither Prahalad Thethwar has been examined by prosecution nor witnesses Teekaram Thethwar and Kheersagar Thethwar have been examined, as such, seizure memo (Ex. P-8) and identification memo (Ex. P-6) cannot be held to be proved by the prosecution.

¶35

In instant case, the complainant had filed written complaint (Ex. P-1) in Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh after about 25 days from the date of incident. Reason shown in filing belated written complaint is not found to be sufficient, thus, evidence brought by prosecution to substantiate charges levelled against accused Smt. Savita Das are found to be very weak, based on which, accused cannot be convicted.

¶36

¶37

Therefore, it is not found that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court suffers from any perversity or illegality.

¶38

In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant acquittal appeal, hence the same is dismissed at motion stage. No order as to cost(s).

¶39

Record of the Courts below be returned forthwith.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶42

Rukhsar

¶43

Digitally
signed by
RUKHSAR
RUKHSAR BANO
BANO Date:
2025.09.22
17:02:59
+0530

Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lilavati Devi Vs Nathuni Singh

Managing Director, C.S.P.D.C.L Vs Smt. Shanti Bai

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Vishal Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahadev Barsa @ Kola Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gurmukh Das Menghani HUF Vs Union of India