Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Manoj Kumar Poyam on 1 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 158 of 2021
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station
Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Poyam S/o Late Dhannuram Poyam Aged
About 29 Years R/o Village Baniyagaon, Kudumbhata,
Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Aghanbai Poyam W/o Late Dhannuram Poyam Aged
About 55 Years R/o Village Baniyagaon, Kudumbhata,
Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Hirdelal Poyam S/o Late Dhannuram Poyam Aged About
23 Years R/o Village Baniyagaon, Kudumbhata,
Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Appellant/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.
DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrwal, J.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board
01.04.2022
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the
Petitioner/State in the matter of acquittal of
accused/respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 from the charges
punishable under Sections 376(3), 323 & 352 of the
Indian Penal Code, respectively, by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon,
District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.
26/2020 extending the benefit of doubt.
2. Learned state counsel would submit that by ignoring
the material available on record and by recording
perverse finding, learned trial Court has acquitted
the accused/respondents of the charges levelled
against them, which deserves to be setaside by
admitting the appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that
accused Manoj Kumar Poyam has committed sexual
intercourse to the prosecutrix regularly from july
2018 with the major prosecutrix against her wishes
and accused Aghanbai Poyam caused simple injury to
the victim and accused Hirdelal Poyam threatened
the victim and used criminal force against her, and
thereby committed the offence.
4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence available on record,
much particular the statement of victim (PW/1),
proceeded to acquit on the ground that the victim
has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Victim has been examined as PW1 and in the
examinationinchief, she stated that the
Respondent No. 1 is her relative and they know each
other from 2018, thereafter, he made physical
relations on the pretext of marriage and when
respondent No.1 engaged with some other girl, FIR
dated 09.04.2020 has been against him. In her cross
examination, victim clearly admitted that they are
relative and they are known to each other since
2018 and she used to visit the accused/respondent
No.1 to the Dantewara Temple, Kosardeta Bandh.
Also, in para 20, she has categorically stated that
they used to have physical relationship whenever
they meet. Dr. Khayati Sakshi (PW7), who has
examined the victim, has not found any external
injury over the body of the victim.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner/State and perused the material available
on record.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of
Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 has laid down the
principle to be followed in appeal against the
acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. and it
has been held that Appellate Court should not
ordinarily set aside acquittal in a case where two
views are possible, though the views of Appellate
Court may be the more probable one and held in para
12 as under:
"..12. This Court time and again has laid down
the guidelines for the High Court to interfere
with the judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the trial court. The appellate court should
not ordinarily set aside a judgment of
acquittal in a case where two views are
possible, though the view of the appellate
court may be the more probable one. While
dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the
appellate court has to consider the entire
evidence on record, so as to arrive at a
finding as to whether the views of trial court
were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider whether
in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial
court had failed to take into consideration
admissible evidence and/or had taken into
consideration the evidence brought on record
contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of
burden of proof may also be a subject matter of
scrutiny by the appellate court."
Thereafter, recently in Anwar Ali & Another Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 Supreme
Court has reviewed its earlier decisions including
Babu (supra) reiterating the principles laid down
therein.
7. The findings recorded by learned Additional
Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents from the
aforementioned charges is based on the testimony of
the victim (PW1) as well as medical evidence of
Dr. Khayati Sakshi (PW7), we found no illegality
in the order impugned acquitting the respondent
particularly when there is a settled legal position
that if two views are possible, the appellate court
should not interfere with the judgment of
acquittal, even otherwise, the prosecution thus has
utterly failed in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the trial Court has fully
justified in recording the finding of acquittal
which is based on proper appreciation of evidence
available on record.
8. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in
limine at motion stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
V/-
