Dismissed¶10

State of Chhattisgarh v. Trilochan Banjara

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2025ACQA/674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), ACQA No. 674 of 2024, decided 08/09/2025 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. State appeal u/S 378(1) CrPC against acquittal in SC/ST Act Case No.22/2018 (Crime 75/2018, PS Bagbahar, Jashpur) for offences under Ss.341, 363, 366 IPC and S.3(2)(va) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Limited scope of interference in acquittal appeals; relied on State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984; no reason to substitute contrary finding; appeal dismissed at admission stage; acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court stands undisturbed — appeal dismissed at admission stage itself. ¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Trilochan Banjara — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 674 of 2024

¶5

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Baghbahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Trilochan Banjara S/o Shri Maniram Banjara, Aged About 34 Years R/o - Raigadhiya Chowk Kotba, Police Station - Baghbahara, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Adv.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

08/09/2025

¶14

1 This appeal is preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge Jashpur, District-Jashpur (CG) in Special Criminal Case under the SC/ST Act No.22/2018 whereby the said Court has acquitted the respondent for commission of offence under Sections 341, 363, 366 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC &

¶15

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.09 14:26:04 +0530

¶16

¶17

ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Crime No. 75/2018, registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District – Jashpur (C.G.).

¶18

The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 24.06.2018 at about 9:00 pm, the prosecutrix, along with her sister & cousin, had gone to attend a marriage in the village Tilgoda. After the marriage function, at about 12:00 -1:00 am, the prosecutrix along with her sister and brother-in-law, was coming back home when near Shiv Mandir, the respondent/accused Trilochan Banjare, accompanied by other co-accused/juvenile, namely Akash Banjara & Luv Kumar Sahu, stopped them on the way and abused them. They threatened the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, then

¶19

her sister & brother-in-law fled away. The co-accused/juvenile Luv Kumar held the hand of the prosecutrix and took her on the bike. The respondent/accused was driving the bike wherein the prosecutrix was sitting between the respondent/accused and juvenile Luv Kumar Sahu, and behind Luv Kumar Sahu, the juvenile Akash Banjara was sitting on the bike. The prosecutrix was taken near Dhan Mandi of one Lakda Munda, and from where the respondent/accused Trilochan Banjara & juvenile Akash Banjara went off. Thereafter, the juvenile Luv Kumar forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and at 4:00 am, the prosecutrix was

¶20

¶21

left at her home. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her sister and thereafter to her parents. After that, a written report was made by the prosecutrix.

¶22

On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged and charge sheet was filed. Charges under Sections 341, 363, 366 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed against the accused/respondent. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the accused/respondent of the aforesaid offence. Hence, the appeal.

¶23

Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecutrix was a minor belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category, was abducted by the respondent/accused along with other coaccused persons and was left in the custody of the other co-accused, Luv Kumar Sahu and Akash Banjara, which is supported by the statements of the prosecutrix and her sister (PW-3). From the statements of the prosecutrix (PW1) and prosecutrix’s sister (PW-3), it is evident that the respondent/accused was driving the bike on which the prosecutrix was taken away. Thus, the guilt of the

¶24

¶25

respondent/accused is fully established from the prosecution's evidence. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submits that the trial Court has passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of learned trial Court.

¶28

Looking to the material available on record and the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), the trial Court found that the prosecutrix herself has admitted in her cross examination that juvenile co-accused Luv Sahu, Akash Banjara and others were drunk and threatened respondent Trilochan Banjara to drop them, she also admitted that accused Trilochan only dropped them at the paddy market on the motorcycle due to the threats and fear of co-accused persons. Thus, the prosecutrix’s statement does not prove that the accused, Trilochan Banjara, maliciously abducted the complainant/prosecutrix or did any wrongful act with her, but that he acted due to threats from the juvenile coaccused persons. Therefore, the crime is not proven against the accused.

¶29

¶30

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 , has held as follows:-

¶31

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

¶32

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to substitute a contrary finding. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.

¶33

10.Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.

¶34

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶35

H.L. Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh v. Trilochan Banjara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Trilochan Banjara

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

Ved Prakash Banchhor Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Seema Soni Vs Smt. Meenakshi Sahu

Alok Kumar Dubey Vs Manoj Sinha

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Lalchand Yadav

Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Vs Satyaprakash Baretha

Manoj Thakur Vs Ashok Nirmalkar