Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rajesh Verma on 25 June, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21387-DB
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1114 of 2024
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Chandoura District
Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Rajesh Verma S/o Shri Ramlakhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Govardhanpur, Bandhpara, Police Station Chandaura, District Surajpur
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25/06/2024
1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2024, which is an application for
condonation of delay in filing the instant petition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the
reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that
sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A.No.1
of 2024 is allowed and delay in filing the petition is condoned.
3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21387-DB
acquittal dated 13/07/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Pratappur, District - Surjapur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.20/2022
(State vs. Rajesh Verma) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pratappur acquitted the respondent / accused from the charges punishable
under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC by holding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:
"(i) the complainant / victim made written complaint before the
Incharge, police chowki Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur whereby
alleging that in December 2021, the respondent came to her house
and after threatening committed rape with her and then also threaten
for life if she disclose the incident. Thereafter, the respondent
continuously committed rape with her forcefully and on the threat to
kill her. Since, the place of incident was at village - Rampur, Police
station - Chandaura, District - Surajpur, where, the offence is
registered as Crime No.90/2022 under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC
against the respondent on 03/06/2022 at 12:30 hours. After due and
necessary investigation the charge sheet was filed and the
respondent was put to face charges under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC
before the learned Trial Court.
ii) That, having been so charged the respondent abjured the guilt. In
order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 07
witnesses in its favour. Respondent has not examined any witness
in his favour though he pleaded to be innocent.
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21387-DB
(iii) That, after appreciating the evidences on record, the learned Trial
Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent /
accused and therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged vide
impugned judgment and order dated 13/07/2023."
5. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
applicant/State would submit that though the scope of interference with the
order of acquittal is very much limited but on the other hand the Appellate
Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the
matter. It is the settled position of law that if reappraisal of the evidence goes
to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and
perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set-aside the same and
reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He
further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial
Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law and the
evidence available on record. The evidence brought on record by the
prosecution clearly pointed towards the involvement of the respondent in the
commission of the alleged offence. The case of the prosecution is based
upon circumstantial evidence which was clearly established by the statement
of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the prosecution had
submitted sufficient material evidence which prima facie establish an offence
under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC however, learned trial Court has not
appreciated the material evidence and acquitted the respondent / accused.
Therefore, learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the
respondent/accused from the aforesaid offence which is perverse to the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21387-DB
record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted.
6. We have heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the
applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned
judgment of acquittal.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent /
accused has observed that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
guilt of the respondent and therefore, the accused deserves acquittal.
Further, the evidence of the witnesses presented by the prosecution lacks
strength and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
But the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond doubt
that the respondent has committed the crime.
8. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions
Judge while acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences, we
do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking
grant of leave to appeal.
9. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an
appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has
held as follows:-
"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very
limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is
impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the
finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21387-DB
permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the
Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable.
The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not
possible at all."
10. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is
rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Deepti
