Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Maneesh Rathore on 31 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 542 of 2022
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The District
Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
Maneesh Rathore S/o Mewalal Rathore, aged about 32
years, R/o Pragati Nagar, Darri, P.S. Darri, District Korba
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Petitioner/State : Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(31/03/2022)
Rajani Dubey, J
1. Heard on admission.
2. The present petition has been filed by the State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and
order dated 04.08.2021 passed by 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in
Sessions Trial No.47/2016 acquitting the
accused/respondent of the charge under Sections 294,
329 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.05.2014 at
about 3.30 pm, when Vikas Singh, a Contractor, was
supervising the work of culvert which was going on near
Ahiran river, the accused/respondent came there and
started quarreling with Vikas Singh that the work of
culvert is not being carried out according to the proper
norms and demanded some money else he would file a
complaint against him. During the said incident, the
accused/respondent inflicted knife blow on right side of
abdomen of Vikas Singh. Thereafter, on very day at
about 4.30 pm, an FIR was lodged against the
accused/respondent by Rajendra Pateria, co-partner of
injured Vikas Singh and offence under Sections 307 &
294 of IPC was registered against him. The injured Vikas
Singh (PW/2) was medically examined by Dr. P.S. Kanwar
(PW/5) who gave his report (Ex.P/2) noticing two incised
wounds over right side of abdomen and four contusions
on posterior aspect of left forearm, on over left side of
back, over right ankle and over right hand's little finger
respectively. The Doctor has opined that the injuries on
right side of abdomen were simple in nature. After filing
of the charge sheet, the trial Judge framed the charges
against accused/respondent under Sections 294, 307
and 329 IPC.
4. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the
prosecution has examined 09 witnesses. Statement of
the accused/respondent was also recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution
case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Two
defence witnesses were also examined to substantiate
its case.
5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record
has acquitted the accused/respondent as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
prosecution has proved its case before the learned trial
Court beyond reasonable doubt by reliable and clinching
evidence but the learned trial Court ignoring the
material evidence recorded the finding of acquittal
extending benefit of doubt and non seizure of weapon of
offence. He further submits that the learned trial Court
failed to appreciate the evidence of Rajendra Pateria
(PW/1), eye-witness to the incident and injured Vikas
Singh (PW/2), whose medical report has been proved by
Dr. P.S. Kanwar (PW/5). There is ample evidence against
the accused/respondent, therefore, the order of acquittal
is liable to be set aside.
7. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the
material available on record.
8. Complainant Rajendra Pateria (PW/1) and injured Vikas
Singh (PW/2) both have stated that the
accused/respondent came to the site where construction
work of culvert was being carried out and he entered
into quarrel with Vikas Singh on account of quality of
work, demanded money and caused injury to him by
knife. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral
and documentary evidence, recorded its finding of
acquittal holding that the evidence of Rajendra Pateria
(PW/1) and injured Vikas Singh (PW/2) do not inspire
confidence of this Court and they do not appear to be
reliable witnesses. That apart, the weapon of offence
knife and bloodstained clothes have not been seized by
the Investigating Officer and thus, acquitted the
accused/respondent extending benefit of doubt.
9. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting
the accused/respondent of the charge punishable under
Sections 294, 329 and 307 IPC is based on material
available on record. We find no illegality in the order
impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when
there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of
record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one
favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even
otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in
proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial
Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of
acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of
evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of
appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited
and interference can only be made if finding recorded by
the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring
the relevant material and considering the irrelevant
ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there
warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the CRMP preferred by the State/applicant is
bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission
stage itself leading to refusal of leave to appeal as
sought for by the State.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pkd
