Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Umashankar And Ors on 11 March, 2026
1
NAFR
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.11
15:57:08
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
ACQA No. 22 of 2014
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Jarhagaon, Distt. Mungeli
(C.G.)
...Appellant
versus
1. Umashankar, S/o Shriram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o
Ghundukapa, PS Jarhagaon Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh,
2 - Laxmi Prasad (Died and Deleted) as per Honble Court Order dated
12-02-2024.
3 - Peelaram S/o Ramsnehi Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Ghundukapa, PS Jarhagaon Distt. Mungeli, C.G.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A..
For Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
11.03.2026
1. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State arising out of the judgment dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Bilaspur, C.G., in Special Sessions Case No. 37/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 363 and 366-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and respondent No. 3 2 of the charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, and also acquitted all the respondents of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 13.07.2012, after having dinner, the complainant (father of prosecutrix) and his family members slept in one room of the house, while the prosecutrix slept in another room. On the next morning at about 7:00 AM, the prosecutrix was found missing. Despite making efforts to search for her, she could not be traced. During inquiry, one Laxmi Prasad Yadav - respondent No.2 (died) informed the complainant that accused Bhagla Sahu alias Peelaram, took the prosecutrix to Bilaspur Railway Station. It was further stated that accused Bhagla Sahu made the prosecutrix board a train for Delhi at about 7:30 AM. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant alleging that the accused persons had enticed and abducted the prosecutrix, knowing fully well that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the police registered FIR (Ex. P-3) as Crime No. 89/2012 at Police Station Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. Accused persons/respondents denied the charges, abjured their guilt, and prayed for trial.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused persons/respondents 3 is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of PW-2/prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. He also submits that despite cogent and convincing evidence on record, the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the accused persons be convicted.
5. Learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court and submits that the learned Appellate Court after appreciation of evidence available on record, rightly acquitted the accused persons which needs no interference by this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. 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:-
"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 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."
8. The present case is based mainly on the evidence of PW-2 4 (prosecutrix). A perusal of her testimony shows that she has turned hostile. In her statement before the Court, she stated that she had gone to Delhi with accused- Pilaram on her own free will. She further stated that when she left her house alone, she met accused- Laxmi Prasad and Umashankar on the way. According to her, she went to Bilaspur Railway Station in the van of accused- Umashankar, and from there, she boarded a train to Delhi and stayed there with accused- Pilaram. She clearly stated that she went with the accused persons voluntarily. Apart from this, PW-3 (father of the prosecutrix) also stated that his daughter/prosecutrix had gone to Delhi with accused- Pilaram. He further stated that the prosecutrix had informed her sister that she was going to Delhi. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the prosecutrix had gone with the accused persons on her own free will. Thus, from the above evidence, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident, victim herself left the house and voluntarily went to Delhi and also informed her sister about the same. Since the prosecutrix (PW-2) herself turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after properly appreciating the evidence available on record, was justified in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charges leveled against them.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, 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:-5
"(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 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."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
11. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash