Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Premlal on 21 March, 2025
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed by
SUNITA GOSWAMI
Date: 2025.03.22
12:45:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:13560-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 68 of 2017
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bemetara (CG).
... Appellant
versus
Premlal S/o Lakhan Satnami, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Hariharpur,
Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara (CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board.
21.03.2025
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
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 11.11.2016 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Sessions Trial
No.102/2015, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted
from the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that due to an altercation
which took place 4 months prior to the incident, occurred between the
complainant- Sakhuwa and the respondent- Premlal, on 14.10.2015,
said Sakhuwa had shifted to Bhilai along with his family members for
the livelihood as he was threatened by the respondent/accused. It is
alleged by the prosecution that the complainant- Sakhuwa received an
information on 14.10.2015 from one Gulab Das at 11.30 am, that the
respondent- Premlal has set his Hut on fire and, upon receiving the
said information, he reached his village and has seen that the roof of
his Hut has been destroyed due to fire. Based upon his (Sakhuwa)
information, an FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the respondent on
the same day for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and
upon completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating
Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bemetara against the respondent in connection with Crime
No. 182/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and,
the matter was thereafter, committed to the Sessions Judge, Bemetara
for trial, where, the charge has been framed with regard to the alleged
offence against the respondent, which was denied by him and claimed
to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the
prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and has exhibited 8
documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his
defence.
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution,
arrived at a conclusion that since the statement of an eye-witness,
namely, Gulab Das Anant (PW-3) was not corroborated by others',
therefore, based upon his testimony, who had a previous enmity with
the respondent, it cannot be held that the respondent is involved in
connection with the alleged crime, and accordingly, he has been
acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being
aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/State.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the
finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in
connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the
materials available on record, in as much as, evidence led by the
prosecution, particularly, the statement of the eye-witness, namely,
Gulas Das Anant (PW-3), has not been scanned in its proper manner
and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of
the alleged crime, as such.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
while referring to the statement of Sushila Bai (PW-8) and Khamman
Das Satnami (PW-7), submits that since the statement of the said eye-
witness- Gulab Das Anant (PW-3) was not corroborated by them and,
that by referring to the statement of Banshilal Satnami (PW-1), the
Kotwar of the concerned village, submits that the complainant-
Sakhuwa, said Gulab Das and Sushila Bai along with one Chameli Bai
used to prepare the false case against the respondent, therefore, the
trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent
as such.
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 respondent has been
charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section
436 of IPC. According to the prosecution, since there is previous
enmity between the respondent and the complainant- Sakhuwa and
because of the threat given by him, said Sakhuwa has shifted to Bhilai
along with his family members for their livelihood and, it was alleged
further that on 14.10.2015 at 11.00 am, one Gulab Das Anant has seen
that the respondent- Premlal has burnt the Hut of said Sakhuwa and,
therefore, he immediately informed the occurrence of the alleged
incident to him. In order to establish the alleged fact, the prosecution
has examined him (Gulab Das Anant) as PW-3, who has stated that he
has seen the respondent- Premlal burning his Hut and, the alleged
incident was seen by his aunt- Sushila Bai, but his statement is,
however, not found to be corroborated by her as she (Sushila Bai),
examined as PW-8, has denied specifically the alleged fact. It appears
further from his (PW-3) cross-examination, particularly para 2 that he
has a previous enmity with the respondent and, it further reveals from
his testimony that the previous enmity also exists between the
complainant and the respondent. At this juncture, it is to be noted, as
revealed from the statement of Banshilal Satnami (PW-1), who is the
Kotwar of the concerned village, that the complainant- Sakhuwa, said
Gulab Das Anant and his aunt- Sushila Bai, used to lodge the
complaint in Police Station against the respondent and prepare
unnecessarily false case against him. In view thereof, unless and until
his (PW-3) statement is corroborated by cogent and reliable evidence,
the respondent cannot be held liable merely, based upon his sole
testimony. However, his evidence is not supported by his aunt- Sushila
Bai (PW-8), as observed herein-above. That apart, it appears from the
statement of one Khamman Das Satnami (PW-7) that he has also seen
the alleged incident, but in his cross-examination, it was stated by him
that since he has seen the respondent standing nearby the Hut of the
complainant- Sakhuwa, therefore, he has raised a doubt upon him that
he might have burnt the Hut of said Sakhuwa. In view of such
circumstances, we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence led by
the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in
connection with the alleged crime.
9. Consequently, 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
sunita
