State Of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 6891 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                  NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRMP No.463 of 2014
                     Acquittal Appeal No........./2014

       State  of   Chhattisgarh,     Through     Police    Station    -
        Chakradharnagar, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
                                                           ---- Appellant
                                Versus
        Amit Yadav, S/o Shri Heeralal Yadav, Aged about 27 years, R/o
        Vinoba Nagar, Boirdadar, Distt. Raigarh (CG)
                                                     ---- Respondent

For Appellant/State : Shri Samir Uraon, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order On Board

17/11/2022

By way of this application, the State/appellant has sought leave

to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC against the judgment dated

28.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in

Criminal Case No.160/2013 acquitting the respondent herein of

charges under Sections 294, 506A and 323 of IPC by extending him

benefit of doubt.

02. The appellant has preferred the acquittal appeal with a delay of

38 days along with an application (IA No.01) for condoning the said

delay. Service report of the notice issued to the respondent on the

above application is not yet received. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned in the application for

condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay of 38 days in filing

the appeal is condoned.

03. Heard on admission.

04. As per the prosecution case, on 20.4.2013 at about 10.30 am the

complainant Jeebolal Chouhan was going in his car with a motor

mechanic for repair of his motorcycle. On the way, his car hit the

bucket of the respondent/accused, who runs sugarcane juice stall, on

which the accused abused the complainant filthily, slapped him and

also threatened him of life which caused much annoyance to him. On

his report, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused

and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against him under

Sections 294, 506A and 323 of IPC and the trial Court framed charges

accordingly.

05. The trial Court considering the depositions of the complainant

Jeebolal Chouhan (PW-6), eyewitness Sushil Kuma Sahu (PW-2) and

Narendra Yadav (PW-3), who turned hostile, as also the medical

evidence of Dr. RS Mandavi (PW-1), arrived at a conclusion that on the

basis of evidence adduced, the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted

him of all the charges.

06. It is a well settled principle of law that in case of appeal against

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.

Having gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court in the

impugned judgment and the evidence of the witnesses, this Court finds

no such illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent

of all the charges. Even otherwise, it 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. In the present case, the

prosecution has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable

doubt and therefore, there is no need to interfere with findings of the

trial Court.

07. In the result, the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby

rejected.

sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

Khan