State Of Chhattisgarh vs Tikait Dewangan
2022 Latest Caselaw 62 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   CRMP No. 1184 of 2021

   • State of Chhattisgarh, through- Police Station- Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.).

                                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

   • Tikait Dewangan, S/o Chhotu Lal Dewangan, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village
     Mohli, Police Station- Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.).

                                                                        ---- Respondent

For State/Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Verma, G.A.

DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board 05/01/2022

1. Heard on application praying for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2021 passed in Sessions Case No. 65/2020 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), acquitting the respondent from the charges is totally erroneous and against the evidence present in the record of the case.

3. An important witness of this case namely Smt. Munni Bai (PW-13) she has clearly stated before the Court about witnessing, the appellant assaulting the deceased namely Shivhari Dewangan with a club on his head due to which he died. This statement of Smt. Munni Bai (PW-13) has been unreasonably disbelieved by the learned trial Court and the appellant has been acquitted. Hence, it is prayed that the present evidence is sufficient for consideration in the acquittal appeal, the application be allowed and leave be granted for filing of the acquittal appeal.

4. Considered on the submissions. On perusal of the impugned judgment it is found that the cited eye witnesses namely Kadduram Paikara (PW-1), Shivdharan Dewangan (PW-5) and Jirodhan Dewangan (PW-14) have not supported the case of prosecution. Smt. Munni Bai (PW-13) was not cited as an eye witness, however she has made statement before the Court as an eye witness. Smt. Munni Bai (PW-13) was confronted with her previous statement (Ex. D/2) in her cross-examination regarding she could not given explanation. On comparing her statement before the Court and her previous statement (Ex.D/2), it appears that she has imporved her statement before the Court, therefore, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing of the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no ground present for allowing this application. The application praying for leave to file appeal is hereby rejected.

5. The present CRMP is accordingly disposed of.

                           Sd/-                                  Sd/- Sd/-
              (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)            (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                           Judge                                 Judge




Vasant