The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lakhan Lal Sahu And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1333 Chatt

                                     1



                                                                           AFR

              HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         ACQA No. 142 of 2012
                      Order reserved on 02.02.2022
                      Order delivered on 15.03.2022

   The State of Chhattisgarh, Through -District Magistrate, Korba, (C.G).
                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                  Versus
1. Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Ramadhin Sahu, Aged About 47 Years.
2. Harishchandra Sahu S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 25 Years.
3. Tinku @ Krishnachand S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 19 Years.
   All are R/o Village Lotna Para Utarda, PS - Pali, Distt. - Korba C.G.
                                                             -------Respondents

   For Appellant/State       :   Mr. BP Banjare, Dy. Government Advocate.
   For Respondents           :   Mr. S. P. Sanat, Advocate.

                 Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
                               C.A.V. Order


1. Appellant-State has preferred this acquittal appeal challenging the

   judgment of acquittal passed by Special Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Korba

   in Special Sessions Trial No.46/2009 on 04.07.2011, whereby learned trial

   Court acquitted the respondents from charges under Sections 341, 294,

   506-II, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(x) of Scheduled

   Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,

   'the Act of 1989').


2. Facts

relevant for disposal of appeal are that Santram Chouhan lodged

report to the concerned Police Station making allegations that on

01.07.2009 he alongwith his brother and sister (Santkumar Chouhan &

Sakuntala) was returning back from agriculture field. When he reached in

front of house of respondents, they stopped him and started abusing and

assaulting him by means of club. When his brother & sister intervened,

respondents abused and assaulted them also. Respondents abused them

by their caste also. Santram Chouhan (complainant) was dragged inside

house of respondents and when he became unconscious, he was thrown

out of house. Based on complaint, FIR was registered against respondents

for commission of aforementioned offences. Complainant, his brother &

sister were sent for medical examination. Injuries suffered by them were

found to be simple in nature. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed

against respondents. After conclusion of trial, respondents were acquitted

from all the charges.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/State submits that trial Court has not

appreciated the evidence available on record in proper manner and

committed error in acquitting respondents. Trial Court considering minor

omissions and contractions have disbelieved other evidence available on

record. Trial Court further erred in considering the story of previous enmity

narrated in defence. From the evidence of complainant and their witnesses,

it is proved that respondents have assaulted complainant, his brother &

sister due to which they suffered injuries. They were also abused by

respondents by their caste. Hence, impugned judgment of acquittal passed

by trial Court is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposes submissions of counsel for

appellant and submits that trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence

available on record, acquitted the respondents from all charges. Trial Court

after discussing entire evidence, oral and documentary, arrived at

conclusion that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Trial Court noticed contradictions in the statements of complainant,

his brother & sister with regard to manner in which incident took place, their

presence and also considered the fact that complainant alongwith his

brother assaulted the respondents due to an old land related dispute

regarding which respondents have lodged report to the concerned Police

Station which is marked as Ex.D-3. That report is prior to report lodged by

complainant. Finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court is based on

appreciation of proper evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference.

5. Heard counsel for parties and perused record of appeal as well as record of

sessions trial Case.

6. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded evidence of complainant, his

brother & sister as PW-4, PW-5 & PW8. After discussing their evidence

came to conclusion that their evidence with regard to incident, as alleged,

of assault or abusement is contradictory to each other, which creates

suspicion upon the case reported by complainant. Court below discussed

evidence of witnesses in para No.9 to 22 of impugned judgment and also

taken note of some land dispute between complainant and respondents.

Respondent No.1/Lakhanlal Sahu (father of respondent Nos.2 & 3) has

purchased the agriculture land from brother of complainant ie Santosh

Kumar.

7. So far as submission of counsel for appellant that Court below has not

appreciated evidence in its true perspective is concerned, perusal of FIR

would show that when complainant alongwith his brother and sister was

returning from agriculture field in evening at about 06:00, respondents

stopped them in front of their house and assaulted them. They also abused

them in filthy language and by their caste. Complainant and his brother &

sister were examined before Court below as PW-4, PW-5 & PW-8.

Complainant in his statement, has stated that when he was returning back

from agriculture field and reached in front of house of respondents, they

stopped and assaulted him by means of club from back side. He was

abused in filthy language and also in the name of his caste. Respondents

took him inside their house and when he became unconscious,

respondents thrown him out of house. Thereafter, he was taken to his

house by his family members.

There is contradictory statement with respect to happening of

incident in FIR and evidence of complainant recorded before Court. PW-4

complainant in his deposition has stated that when his brother and sister

came to intervene, they were also assaulted by means of club. Whereas

(PW-8) sister of complainant in her deposition, has categorically stated that

she was not assaulted by respondents. She further stated that when her

brothers (Santram and Santkumar) were returning from agriculture field,

they were assaulted by the respondents. Statement/evidence of

complainant and his sister, are contradictory to each other. More so, the

story narrated in FIR is different than stated by witnesses before Court in

their evidence. This is material contradiction in evidence of prosecution

witnesses. In their evidence, these witnesses have also admitted the land

dispute.

8. PW-5, brother of complainant, in para 5 of his deposition has admitted that

respondent No.1/Lakhanlal Sahu has purchased land from his elder brother

Late Santosh Kumar and he is in possession. He also stated that they

have sold said land to one Ratiram. In para no.8 of evidence complainant

also admitted that after death of his brother, respondent No.1 took

possession of said land. PW-8, sister of complainant in her deposition,

also stated that her elder brother Santosh Kumar has mortgaged land with

respondent No.1.

From the above evidence, it is apparent that there was some land

dispute between complainant and respondents. It is also evident that

respondents have also lodged a report against complainant party and that

report (Ex.D-3) is prior to report of complainant. In para 13 of impugned

judgment, trial Court discussed evidence of one independent witness ie

Dayaram as PW-2 who is doing business of selling clothes in rural markets.

Trial Court disbelieved evidence of this witness, considering his nature of

business in which he was engaged, the day and time on which incident

took place was market day of other village. Rural market assembles in the

evening only.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramanand Yadav vs Prabhu Nath

Jha & Ors reported in 2003 (12) SCC 606 has considered scope of

interference by Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal appeal and held

thus :-

"21. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) Supreme 567. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (4) Supreme 167, Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (3) Supreme 320, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors, 2003 (7) Supreme 152, State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 2003 (5) Supreme 508 & State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr, 2003 (7) Supreme 17."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court again in case of Kallu alias Masih & Ors vs.

State of MP reported in 2006 (10) SCC 313, held thus :-

"8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dhanapal vs State reported in 2009

(10) SCC 401 has observed that when two reasonable or plausible views

can be reached one that leads to acquittal and other to conviction, the

High Court/Appellate Court must rule in favour of accused. Some of the

principles to be considered while considering acquittal appeal which read

as under :-

"39. 41. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court.

3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached

- one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

12. Testing the facts of present case on the touchstone of law laid down in

aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme, I am of the considered opinion

that the view taken by the trial Court concerned is one of the plausible view.

The judgment of trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence

and it cannot be termed as perverse.

13. In the light of above discussion and rulings, I do not find any merit in this

appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

Jamal/-