State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shivlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2205 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR


              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            CRMP No. 582 of 2022
    State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District
     Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh).
                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
   1. Shivlal, S/o Bodhiram Yadav, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bade
      Gobra, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
   2. Harishchand, S/o Mangturam Verma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
      Village Gopalpur, Police       Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
      (Chhattisgarh)
                                                             ---- Respondents

For Appellant: Shri Saumya Rai, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge & Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge Order on Board 06/04/2022 Per Rajani Dubey, Judge

1. Heard on prayer for grant of leave to appeal. Learned State counsel

would argue that even though prosecution led reliable evidence and

Investigating Officer (I.O.) has proved its case before the trial court but

the learned trial court acquitted the respondents.

2. The appellant/State intends to prefer the instant appeal against the

judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.

35/2018, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted from

the charge under Section 25, (1) (1-B) (A) of Arms Act and Section 4,

5 of Explosive Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.01.2015, on the basis of

secret information, Station House Officer searched and seized various

articles of arms and explosives from the conscious possession of both

the accused, and thereafter crime has been registered against the

accused at Police Station- Mainpur.

4. Prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and after

appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court

has acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them.

5. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material

available on record.

6. After going through the impugned judgment of acquittal, oral and

documentary evidence led by the prosecution, we find that all

independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case before

trial court, even Police officer also did not support the memorandum

and seizure and Investigating Officer admitted many suggestions of

the defence which indicate that he had not prepared various

documents carefully.

7. Therefore, in these circumstances, learned trial court was left with no

option but to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt. In our

opinion the view taken by the trial court is quite possible and plausible.

8. Given the limited scope of interference against judgment of acquittal,

we do not consider present to be a fit case for grant of leave to

appeal.

9. Accordingly, application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected.

              Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
        (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                                       (Rajani Dubey)
             Judge                                                     Judge




Ruchi