Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwari Bai Atrame vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11623-DB
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 68 of 2020
1 - Jageshwari Bai Atrame W/o Late Radheylal Atrame Aged About
33 Years R/o Village Rangakathera, Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Appellant : None. Ms. Nirupama Bajpai,
Advocate through Legal Aid.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava,
Deputy Advocate General.
ACQA No. 104 of 2021
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
Versus
2
1 - Ramadhar Purame S/o Late Milor Singh, aged about 45 Years,
Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2- Suraj Kumar Purame, S/o Budhu Ram Purame, aged about 20
years, Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon,
District Rajnandgaon, C.G.
3- Kushal Usare, S/o Mansukh Usare, aged about 21 years,
Resident of village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon, District
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
4- Chandan Singh Patel, S/o Late Biklu Patel, aged about 30
years, Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
(Cause-title Taken From Caste Information System)
For Appellant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy
Advocate General.
For Respondents : None.
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Judgment on Board 11.03.2026 Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 24.12.2019 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial 3 No.17/2019, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2020 has been preferred by the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2019, whereby she has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Imprisonment for life with a Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months Under Section 201 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
3. Acquittal Appeal No.104 of 2021 has been filed by the State against the same judgment whereby respondents, namely, Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh Patel have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC.
4. Since no one appeared on behalf of the accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020, Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, 4 learned counsel on the panel of the High Court Legal Services Committee, was requested to assist the Court and argue the matter on behalf of the appellant. She kindly consented and advanced arguments on behalf of the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame.
5. The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue a formal order of appointment in her favour, and she shall be entitled to the prescribed fee in accordance with the rules.
6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased- Chavlesh Churendra was residing in village Rengakathera under Police Station Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. It is alleged that the deceased was having a love affair with the present appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame. According to the prosecution, the villagers were aware of the said relationship and a meeting was convened in the village wherein both of them were advised to stay separately and not to continue their relationship. On 17.11.2018, Kamta Prasad (PW-7) along with village Kotwarin Malti Devi (PW-6) and others went to Police Station Mohla and informed that the dead body of deceased- Chavlesh Churendra was lying inside the house of appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-15, 5 inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Devesh Thakur (PW-20), who opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. On the basis of the post- mortem report (Ex.P-43), FIR (Ex.P-32) was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, it was alleged that on interrogation, the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame disclosed that on the night of 16.11.2018, she and the deceased had gone to the house of her relative acquitted co-accused- Ramadhar Purame at village Khadgaon. According to the prosecution, the deceased attempted to establish physical relations with her, which resulted in a quarrel and in the heat of the moment, she strangulated the deceased with her hands. It was further alleged that after the death of the deceased, the other acquitted co-accused persons assisted in transporting the dead body to the house of the appellant and attempted to conceal the evidence.
7. During the course of investigation, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-4 and certain articles belonging to the deceased such as spectacles, cap, cloth 6 and mobile phone were allegedly seized from her possession vide Exs.P-5 & P-6. The motorcycle of the deceased bearing registration number CG-08-AF-7899 and a pair of slippers were also seized from near the house of the appellant vide Ex.P-16.
8. After due investigation, accused persons were charge- sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the aforesaid offences.
9. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 43 documents (Exs.P-1 to P-43). However, the accused persons in support of their defence have examined none, but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1.
10. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the co-accused persons, namely Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh Patel, of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. However, it convicted and sentenced the accused, Jageshwari Bai Atrame, for the offences mentioned 7 in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, separate appeals have been filed, one by the accused- Jageshwari Bai Atrame, challenging her conviction and sentence, and the other by the State against the acquittal of the aforesaid co-accused persons.
11. Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020 - Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that merely because the dead body of the deceased was found in a house allegedly belonging to the appellant, she has been implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the said house actually belonged to the appellant. From the evidence of PW-1 Hulesh Kumar, it appears that the house belonged to Soma Bai, the mother of the appellant. It is further pointed out that Soma Bai, who had first informed about the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution. He further contends that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. He also 8 submits that the alleged motive of a love affair has not been proved by the prosecution. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant be set aside and she be acquitted of the charges levelled against her.
12. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned State counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house where the appellant was present, and the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation. It is further submitted that the appellant has failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased died. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing her, which calls for no interference by this Court.
13. Acquittal Appeal No.104 of 2021- Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents, namely Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh Patel, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. It is argued that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the death of the deceased occurred in the house of respondent Ramadhar Purame and thereafter the dead body was transported with the help of the other accused persons. It 9 is further argued that Tarun Kumar Choudhary (PW-8) has clearly stated that when he went to the house of Ramadhar Purame, the deceased was lying there and the other accused persons were present. It is therefore submitted that the trial Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the said accused persons. He further submits that the seizure of the vehicle allegedly used for transporting the dead body and the circumstances brought on record during the course of investigation clearly establish the involvement of the other accused persons in the offence. It is therefore contended that the acquittal recorded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the respondents be convicted accordingly.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
15. The first question for consideration is whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The trial Court has answered this question in the affirmative, relying upon the postmortem report (Ex. P-43) proved by PW-20 Dr. Devesh Thakur. The said finding is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding.
10
16. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is the perpetrator of the crime in question.
17. Admittedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available on record. The five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein it was observed in paragraph 153 as under:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 :
SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 2 (1973) 2 SCC 793 11 be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2)the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5)there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
18. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the evidence available on record is required to be examined.
19. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are: (i) the alleged love affair between the deceased and the appellant; (ii) the alleged telephonic conversation between them; (iii) the presence of the deceased and the appellant at the house of co- accused Ramadhar Purame; (iv) the alleged last seen 12 circumstance; (v) the memorandum statement and recovery of certain articles; and (vi) the recovery of the motorcycle and slippers of the deceased from near the house of the appellant. We shall examine these circumstances one by one.
20. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged love affair between the deceased and the appellant. In order to establish this circumstance, the prosecution examined Hulesh Kumar (PW-1), Yogeshwar (PW-2), Bisal Singh (PW-3), Chummin Bai (PW-5) and Malti Devi (PW-6). These witnesses have stated that there had been discussions in the village regarding the relationship between the deceased and the appellant and that a meeting had also been convened in the village. However, none of the witnesses have stated that they had direct personal knowledge of such relationship. Their statements are only based on what they had heard from others in the village. Even the wife of the deceased, Chummin Bai (PW-5), has not made any categorical statement that the deceased was having a love affair with the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame. Therefore, the alleged motive suggested by the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged telephonic conversation between the deceased and the appellant. For this purpose, the prosecution relied upon the call 13 detail records produced by Sanjeev Nema (PW-14). However, from the evidence on record, it appears that one of the mobile numbers allegedly used by the deceased was registered in the name of another person namely Poleshwar. There is no evidence to establish that the said mobile phone was actually being used by the deceased. Therefore, the call detail records do not conclusively establish that there was telephonic conversation between the deceased and the appellant on the relevant date.
22. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased and the appellant were present in the house of acquitted co-accused- Ramadhar Purame at village Khadgaon. In this regard, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Tarun Kumar Choudhary (PW-8). This witness has stated that he was called to the house of co-accused- Ramadhar Purame as someone had become unconscious. When he reached there, he examined the person and found that he had already died. He further stated that the appellant and some other persons were present there. However, the testimony of this witness does not establish that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together immediately before the occurrence. His statement only shows that when he reached the house of co-accused- Ramadhar Purame, the deceased was already lying dead. 14 Therefore, the circumstance of last seen together cannot be said to have been proved.
23. In the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 3, the Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was observed in paragraph 34 as under :-
"34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the 3 (2007) 3 SCC 755 15 accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused 16 persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. "
24. The prosecution has also relied upon the memorandum statement of the appellant and the alleged recovery of certain articles belonging to the deceased such as spectacles, cap, cloth and mobile phone from her possession. In this regard the prosecution examined seizure witnesses including Bisal Singh (PW-3) and Dilar Singh (PW-10). However, both these witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Though they admitted their signatures on the seizure memo, but they stated that they had signed the documents on the asking of the police and did not know about the actual seizure. Therefore, the evidence relating to recovery is also not of such a nature which can conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant.
25. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased and his slippers from near the house of the appellant. However, the mere presence of the motorcycle and slippers near the house of the appellant is not sufficient to prove that she had committed the murder of the deceased. 17
26. Another important aspect which requires consideration is that the prosecution has not examined Soma Bai, who is stated to be the mother of the appellant and the person who first informed others about the presence of the dead body. She was a material witness who could have thrown light on the circumstances in which the dead body was found. The failure of the prosecution to examine this important witness creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case. It is also noteworthy that several prosecution witnesses including seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The evidence of the remaining witnesses does not establish the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in a clear and convincing manner.
27. Upon careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing conclusively towards the guilt of the appellant. At best, the evidence may raise a suspicion against the appellant. However, it is a settled principle of criminal law that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot substitute for proof. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof in a criminal trial. The 4 1996 (10) SCC 193 18 entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused has not been established.
28. In the matter of Kali Ram vs State of H.P. 5, the Supreme Court has held in para 25 which reads as under:-
"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."
29. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the five golden principles constituting the "panchsheel" for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). Therefore, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and, consequently, the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame, is hereby 5 (1973) 2 SCC 808 19 set aside and she is acquitted of the charges levelled against her on the basis of benefit of doubt.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.60/2020 filed by the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is allowed.
31. Now coming to Acquittal Appeal No. 104 of 2021 filed by the State against the respondents, namely Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh Patel, it is to be noted that the learned trial Court has acquitted them on the ground that there is no reliable evidence available on record to establish their involvement in the commission of the offence.
32. The prosecution case against these respondents was that they assisted in transporting the dead body of the deceased from village Khadgaon to village Rengakathera. However, the prosecution has failed to adduce any direct or reliable evidence in support of this allegation. The only witness relied upon by the prosecution in this regard is Tarun Kumar Choudhary (PW-8), who has merely stated that when he went to the house of respondent No.1, Ramadhar Purame, the deceased was lying there and the other accused persons were present. However, his testimony does not indicate that the said respondents had participated in the commission of the offence or had assisted in transporting the dead body of the deceased. 20 Similarly, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the vehicle allegedly seized during the course of investigation was actually used for transporting the dead body. The seizure witnesses relating to the said vehicle have not supported the prosecution case in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence connecting the respondents with the alleged act, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting them cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record.
33. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, unreasonable or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.
34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Constable Surendra Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 6, whereby in Para-11 & 12, it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as under:
"11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda 6 2025 INSC 114 21 Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.
482-83, para 29) 6 (2024) 8 SCC 149 "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para 42
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general 22 principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, 23 there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' "
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748], this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows :(SCC p. 584, para 8) "8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary 24 evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material 25 evidence on record; and 41.3. 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."
12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned 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."
35. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held in para 36 as under:-
"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:-26
(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;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(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."
36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the 27 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Constable Surendra Singh & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents herein.
37. Accordingly, the Acquittal Appeal No.104/2021 filed by the State against the accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed.
38. In the result:-
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2020 filed by the accused-
Jageshwari Bai Atrame, is allowed.
(ii) Acquittal Appeal No. 104 of 2021 filed by the State is dismissed.
39. The appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of 28 Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
40. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Registry is further directed to transmit copy of this judgment to the High Court Leal Services Committee for necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Vishakha