Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kaleshwar Soni And Ors on 3 January, 2025
1 VIVEK
RAWAT
Digitally
signed by
VIVEK RAWAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 66 of 2015
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bankimongra, District
Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant
versus
1 - Kaleshwar Soni S/o Gorelal Soni Aged About 49 Years R/o
Shantinagar Balgi, Quarter No. Mq 21, Ps Bankimongra, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Yamuna Prasad S/o Chhote Soni Aged About 32 Years R/o
Shantinagar Balgi, Quarter No. Mq 21, Ps Bankimongra, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Jitendra Kumar Soni S/o Kaleshwar Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o
Shantinagar Balgi, Quarter No. Mq 21, Ps Bankimongra, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Manoj Soni S/o Kaleshwar Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o
Shantinagar Balgi, Quarter No. Mq 21, Ps Bankimongra, District Korba
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G.
For Respondents : Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate.
DB:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order On Board
Per-Sanjay S.Agrawal, J.
03.01.2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning
the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30.07.2012
passed by the Special Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Korba [Under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1989") in
Special Sessions Case No. 52 of 2009, whereby, the respondents
have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections
450, 436 of I.P.C and under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Act, 1989.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on
22.05.2009 at 09:30 AM., the complainant-Itwar Singh (PW-1)
lodged the report before the Police Station Bankimongra, District
Korba, alleging, inter-alia, that on the previous day, i.e. 21.05.2009
around 11:30 PM, Respondent no.1-Kaleshwar Soni along with his
sons', namely, Jitendra Kumar Soni and Manoj Soni and also with
the help of his cousin, namely, Yamuna Prasad, entered into his
house and burnt the same with the aid of kerosene oil and, at the
relevant time, he was at home along with his wife, namely, Santra
Bai (PW-3). It is alleged further that the said Kaleshwar Soni, while
using matchstick has burnt his house, which caused household
articles amounting to Rs.5,000/-. It is stated further that he
informed the alleged incident to one Satrughan Singh Rajput and
Anjor Singh. Based upon the alleged report, the Police Station-
Bankimongra registered the offence punishable against the
respondents under Section 436/34 of I.P.C., in connection with
Crime No.114/2009. During investigation, Nazari Naksha (Ex.P-3)
and Panchnama (Ex.P-4) were prepared and various articles have
been seized. A disclosure statement of Respondent No.1-
Kaleshwar Soni was recorded and bases upon which, a plastic
bottle, which contained two and half litre of kerosene oil, has been
seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) and after completion of the
usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katghora against the Respondents
for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 450 read with
Section 34 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Act,
1989 and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Special
Sessions Judge (Atrocity) Korba, whereby, the alleged offence
mentioned herein above has been framed, which were denied by
the Respondents and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondents, the
prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited
11 documents, while none was examined by the Respondents in
their defence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the
prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since there is material
discrepancies in the statement of the complainant-Itwar Sing (PW-
1) and his wife-Santra Bai (PW-3), the Respondents are,
therefore, not held to be the author of the alleged crime and,
accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged
offence, occurred on 21.05.2009 around 11:30 P.M., and being
aggrieved, the Appellant/State has preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits
that the finding of the Court below holding that the respondents
are not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently, contrary to
the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led
by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and
thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal
as passed by the trial Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the entire record carefully.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the First
Information Report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the complainant-Itwar
Singh on 22.05.2009 at 09:30 A.M., with regard to the incident
occurred on the previous day i.e., 21.05.2009 around 11:30 P.M.
From perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that on the
date of incident, the said Respondent No.1-Kaleshwar Soni along
with his sons', namely, Jitendra Kumar Soni and Manoj Soni and
also along with his cousin, namely, Yamuna Prasad, entered into
the house of the complainant-Itwar Singh and burnt the same with
the aid of kerosene oil, when he was at home along with his wife-
Santra Bai (PW-3). It appears further from the said report that
owing to the alleged incident, household articles were burnt, which
cost to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
9. It, however, reveals from the testimony of the said
complainant-Itwar Singh, that Respondent No.1-Kaleshwar Soni
has burnt his house and has failed to disclose the name of other
accused persons, as was mentioned by him in his First Information
Report (Ex.P-1), while, it appears from the testimony of his wife-
Santra Bai (PW-3), that she knows the accused persons, who
entered their house and burnt the same with the help of kerosene
oil. Her Statement, thus, appears to be varied from the statement
of her husband. That apart, it appears from her cross-examination,
at paragraph 6, that when the alleged incident had taken place, all
were sleeping. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
alleged incident was seen either by her or her husband, as alleged
by the said complainant-Itwar Singh in his report, marked as Ex.P-
1. It reveals further from her (PW-3) statement that on account of
the alleged incident, entire household articles, like TV, Bed, cot
(खटिया), and cooler were burnt, but, the same was, however, not
found to be corroborated by the Nazari Naksha, marked as Ex.P-3
prepared on the same day, as it appears from a bare perusal of
the said Nazari Naksha that nothing was infact there in the house.
It, thus, appears that she (Santra Bai, PW-3) has rather
exaggerated the story.
10. Besides, a plastic bottle was shown to be recovered from
Respondent No.1-Kaleshwar Soni, vide Ex.P-7 in presence of
Satrughan Singh Rajput and Anjor Singh and a bare perusal of the
testimony of Anjor Singh (PW-6), it appears that a jerrycan of
kerosene oil and bamboo stick were seized, which was, however,
not found to be proved by the said seizure memo, as only a plastic
bottle filled with two and a half litre of kerosene oil alone was
recovered. It also appears from his statement, as revealed from
paragraph 1, that jerrycan of kerosene oil and bamboo stick were
infact recovered from the spot and stated further specifically at
paragraph 11 that both i.e., Jerrycan (डिब्बा) and bottle are different
with each other. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
alleged articles were found to be recovered from possession of
Respondent No.1-Kaleshwar Soni, as alleged by the prosecution.
No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed on record
by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents are liable
for the commission of the alleged offence, as alleged by the
prosecution.
11. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any
substance in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is,
accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S.Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
vivek
