Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Iqbal on 22 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 778 of 2017
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Incharge, Police
Station - Koni, District Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwali -
Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Iqbal, S/o Mohammed Siddique, age 25 years, R/o
Nayapara, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Yusuf, S/o Ukhadiya @ Sher Khan (since dead), age 30
years, R/o Edgah Bhata, Police Station Azard Chowk,
District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, G.A.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
22/11/2022
1. Heard on admission.
2. The present petition has been fled by the State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and
order dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in
Criminal Case No.102/2011 acquitting the
accused/respondent No.1-Iqbal of the charge under
Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 34 of Indian Penal Code
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.09.1998 at
around 23.00 hours, the accused/applicant near
Idgarhbhata uttered obscene words to complainant Ram
Kumar and also extended life threat showing sword and
thereby caused indignation to the public nearby the
place of incident. Based on this report, FIR under
Sections 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC was registered against
accused/respondents.
4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was
fled by the police under Sections 294, 506-B, 34 IPC
followed by framing of charge by the Court below
accordingly.
5. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the
prosecution has examined 01 witness. No statement
has been made by the complainant/victim against the
accused/respondents for which no explanation has been
taken under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record
has acquitted the accused/respondents as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to
appeal.
7. Counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has
erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondent No.1
even when there is ample evidence against him.
8. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the
material available on record.
9. During the course of trial, accused/respondent No.2 died
and this petition only confned in respect of the accused/
respondent No.1. In this case, even after granting
sufficient opportunity from the year 1998 to 2016, the
prosecution has failed to secure the presence of
complainant and failed to adduce their evidence &
therefore, looking to the pendency of the case, the
opportunity of prosecution evidence was closed. Non-
examination of complainant or the other prosecution
witnesses who were present at the time of incident
would lead to draw an adverse inference and it is fatal to
the case of the prosecution.
10. The learned trial Court, after considering the fact
situation of the case, has come to the conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. I do not fnd any illegality in the order
impugned acquitting the respondent No.1. Even
otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed to
examine any witness before the trial Court. Furthermore,
in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very
limited and interference can only be made if fnding
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.
11. 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/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
pkd
