State Of Chhattisgarh vs Bir Bahadur Ram Basor
2022 Latest Caselaw 2686 Chatt

                                    1

                                                               NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRMP No. 913 of 2021
        State   of  Chhattisgarh         Through   Police   Station
         Balrampur,    District           Balrampur,     Ramanujganj
         Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ­­­­ Petitioner
                                Versus
       1. Bir Bahadur Ram Basor         S/o Haura, Aged About 35
          Years,   R/o  Village         Khajuri,   Police   Station
          Karoundha,    District          Balrampur     Ramanujganj
          Chhattisgarh.
       2. Tara @ Fagni    W/o Late Santosh Lakra, Aged About 45
          Years   R/o      Village   Hanspur,   Police   Station
          Karoundha,       District     Balrampur    Ramanuganj,
          Chhattisgarh.     Presently R/o I ­ 1, Shakurpur,
          Northern West   (Mukundpur), Delhi.
       3. Vijay Kumar Bharti S/o Late Kashinath Bharti, Aged
          About 48 Years, R/o Village Rajapur, Via Dalippur,
          Police Station Piro, District Aara ­ Bhojpur,
          Presently R/o Mukundpur, D ­ Block, Delhi ­ 42.
                                                   ­­­­ Respondents



     For Petitioner/State       :       Shri Ashish Tiwari, G.A.


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                        Judgment on Board
                            26/04/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard on application filed under Section 378(3) of

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to

appeal.

2. Application for grant of leave to appeal has been

filed by the State in the matter of acquittal of

respondents No. 1 & 3 from the charges punishable

under Sections 363, 365, 368, 370(4) & 506 Part II

of IPC and Respondent No. 2 from the charges

punishable under Sections 368, 370(4), 374, 344,

506 Part II of IPC & Section 3 R/w Section 14 of

Child Labour (Prohibition & Prevention) Act by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj,

District Balrampur­Ramanujganj (C.G.) vide order

dated 23.11.2019.

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

30.12.2018 at about 8:00 AM, at Punjab National

Bank, Balrampur, respondents No. 1 Bir Bahadur Ram

Basor and Respondent No. 3 Vijay Kumar Bharti,

despite knowing the fact that victim is a minor,

kidnapped him from the legal guardianship of his

parents and brought him Ambikapur & Delhiand sold

him to the respondent No. 2 Tara @ Fangi and as

such committed the crime of kidnapping, human

trafficking & exploitation.

4. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate,

submits that learned Sessions Judge has acquitted

the respondents herein by recording a finding,

which is perverse and contrary to the law and as

such the leave to appeal deserves to be granted.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

6. The trial Court has clearly recorded the finding

that the prosecution has failed to bring home the

offences beyond reasonable doubt and furthermore,

victim (PW­2) and his brother Babulal (PW­3) have

not made any specific statement implicating the

accused/respondents herein in the aforesaid charges

and hence, they have not supported the case of the

prosecution. In view of the above, the trail Court

has proceeded to acquit the accused/respondents.

7. 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.

8. The trial Court on the basis of oral and

documentary evidence on record, has taken the

plausible view of matter by acquitting the

respondents herein from the aforementioned charges.

9. Having considered the rival submissions of learned

counsel for the petitioner and in view of the law

on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and

ambit of Section 378 Cr.P.C., we are of the

considered opinion that the finding recorded by the

learned Sessions Judge is based on proper

appreciation of evidence available on record. We do

not find any compelling & substantial reasons to

interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded

by the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected and the

appeal is also dismissed.

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



V/-