Chattisgarh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rd.Rajak And Ors on 7 September, 2022

                                 1

                                                              NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 Judgment reserved on :    28/06/2022
                 Judgment delivered on:     07/09/2022

                       CRA No. 2092 of 2000
        State of Madhya Pradesh(Now C.G.)          through the
         Police   Station  Chilpi,   District        Rajnandgaon
         (Presently Distt. Kawardha)
                                                  Appellant
                             Versus
     1. R. D. Rajak S/o. Chetram Rajak, aged 42 years, R/o.
        Kachharipara, Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon,
     2. Rajendra Kumar S/o. Silvester, aged 52 years, R/o.
        Barela, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur,
     3. Radheylal S/o. Gourishankar, aged 55 years, R/o.
        Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur,
     4. Hardayal S/o. Khaman Singh, aged 40 years, R/o.
        Gurudwara Colony, Raipur.
     5. R.P. Soni S/o. Mangalchand Soni, aged 47 years,
        R/o. Sonarpara, Champa, P.S. Champa, District
        Bilaspur,
     6. Lala S/o. Bhaiyalal, aged 35 years, R/o. Takhatpur,
        District Bilaspur,
     7. Durga S/o. Jhadu, aged 46 years, R/o. Takhatpur,
        District Bilaspur
                                                Respondents

For Appellant/State : Mr. Lalit Jangde, G.A. For Respondent 4 : Mr. Rahil Kochar, Adv. For Respondent 5 : Ms. Indiara Tripathi, Adv.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Order

1. This appeal has been preferred by the

Petitioner/State against the impugned judgment of

dated 05.07.1999, whereby the respondents herein

have been acquitted from the charges punishable

under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 380 of the IPC by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha (M.P.)

(Now Chhattisgarh), in Criminal Case No.

604/1997.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that

respondent R.D. Rajak was posted in Chilpi Timber

Depot as a Ranger whose work was to allow picking

up woods meant for sale after verifying transit

pass to be issued by D.F.O. and other requisites

documents. Upon releaving the Depot Incharge

Mishra, one Pataskar has taken charge of it. In

the meanwhile, respondent R.D. Rajak was In

charge for the exit of woods. Thereafter, on

being verified the record it came to forefront

that the wood which was already sold or about to

sell has been existed from Depot. Further, the

wood that was not sold also found to be missing.

Thereafter, concerned Conservative of Forest was

informed though the D.F.O. Omkar. An inquiry was

conducted by D.F.O. Omkar whereupon it was found

that it was respondent R.D. Rajak who is

responsible for the existence of the said Timber

logs from depot after issuing the transit pass.

So, an FIR was lodged against the responsible

persons/respondents No. 1 to 7. After completion

of investigation, chargesheet was filed and

charges were framed against 7 respondents.

Against respondent R.D. Rajak charges were framed

under Sections 409, 467 & 468 of IPC and against

all the other accused/respondents charge was

framed under Section 380 of IPC.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the

respondents/accused, prosecution has examined as

many as 21 witnesses. Statements of the respondents

herein were also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt.

4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the

oral and documentary evidence available on record,

acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid

charges against which the appeal has been

preferred.

5. Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned Dy. Government Advocate

would submit that prosecution has examined total

21 witnesses in support of prosecution and all

witnesses have categorically stated against the

accused persons but the learned trial Court

absolutely unjustified in acquitting the

respondent from the aforesaid charges by

recording the finding which is perverse to the

record. It is further submitted that respondents

forged the official documents of forest

department but the learned trail Court overlooked

the gravity of the offence. Learned trial Court

erred in not relying upon the evidence adduced by

the prosecution although there was sufficient

evidence against the respondent, therefore, the

finding and conclusion drawn by the Court below

are liable to be dismissed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

supported the impugned judgment and submitted

that there is no documentary evidence available

on record which can prove the guilt of

respondents. Learned trial Court found that S.D.

Omkar was responsible for all the irregularities

but other persons were held responsible for

missing the logs and forest department recovered

the money from the responsible person. Respondent

No. 1 R.D. Rajak was exonerated from departmental

inquiry. As such, learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid

charges, therefore, this appeal is liable to be

dismissed. In support of his submission, learned

counsel for the respondents placed reliance in

the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs.

State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

8. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence and in para 22 found

that S.D. Omkar and other officers are

responsible for the irregularities in

misappropriation. Respondent R.D. Rajak was

exonerated from the departmental inquiry and

prosecution witnesses also did not identify the

other respondents. Ramadhar (PW15), Preetam Das

(PW16) & Gajanand (PW17) all stated in their

statement that they did not know the Truck number

as well as about the driver of the truck.

Prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact

that missing logs were seized from the possession

of respondents so, learned trial Court rightly

finds that prosecution has failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murlidhar

alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed

in (2014) 5 SCC 730. held in paras 11 12 as

under:

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh3 while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR p.54, para 7) "7... the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is

3 Surajpal Singh V. State, AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331

further reinforced by his acquittal by the trail court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

12.Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:  There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

 The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;  Thought, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and  Merely because the appellate court on re appreciation and reevaluation of the evidence

is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

10. The findings recorded by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate acquitting the respondents from the

offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468 &

380 of IPC is based on material available on

record. This Court finds no illegality in the order

impugned acquitting the respondents particularly

when there is a settled legal position that if two

views are possible, the appellate court should not

interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even

otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed

in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

trial Court has fully justified in recording the