[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Umashankar And Ors on 11 March, 2026
1
NAFR
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.11
15:57:08
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
+0530
ACQA No. 22 of 2014
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Jarhagaon, Distt. Mungeli
(C.G.)
...Appellant
versus
1. Umashankar, S/o Shriram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o
Ghundukapa, PS Jarhagaon Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh,
2 - Laxmi Prasad (Died and Deleted) as per Honble Court Order dated
12-02-2024.
3 - Peelaram S/o Ramsnehi Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Ghundukapa, PS Jarhagaon Distt. Mungeli, C.G.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A..
For Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
11.03.2026
1. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State
arising out of the judgment dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Sessions
Judge (Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Bilaspur, C.G., in Special
Sessions Case No. 37/2012, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted
accused/respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 363
and 366-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and respondent No. 3
of the charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, and also
acquitted all the respondents of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 13.07.2012,
after having dinner, the complainant (father of prosecutrix) and his
family members slept in one room of the house, while the prosecutrix
slept in another room. On the next morning at about 7:00 AM, the
prosecutrix was found missing. Despite making efforts to search for
her, she could not be traced. During inquiry, one Laxmi Prasad Yadav -
respondent No.2 (died) informed the complainant that accused Bhagla
Sahu alias Peelaram, took the prosecutrix to Bilaspur Railway Station.
It was further stated that accused Bhagla Sahu made the prosecutrix
board a train for Delhi at about 7:30 AM. On the basis of the report
lodged by the complainant alleging that the accused persons had
enticed and abducted the prosecutrix, knowing fully well that she
belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the police registered FIR (Ex. P-3) as
Crime No. 89/2012 at Police Station Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli.
During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses
were recorded.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court.
Accused persons/respondents denied the charges, abjured their guilt,
and prayed for trial.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the
finding of the trial Court holding that the accused persons/respondents
is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently
contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the
evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of
PW-2/prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and
thereby, erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents from the
commission of the alleged crime. He also submits that despite cogent
and convincing evidence on record, the trial Court committed an error
in acquitting the accused persons/respondents, therefore, the
impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the
accused persons be convicted.
5. Learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Appellate Court and submits that the learned
Appellate Court after appreciation of evidence available on record,
rightly acquitted the accused persons which needs no interference by
this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State
of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of
interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking
Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the
trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when
evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order
of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore,
the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened
but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in
favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny
on the accepted legal parameters."
8. The present case is based mainly on the evidence of PW-2
(prosecutrix). A perusal of her testimony shows that she has turned
hostile. In her statement before the Court, she stated that she had gone
to Delhi with accused- Pilaram on her own free will. She further stated
that when she left her house alone, she met accused- Laxmi Prasad and
Umashankar on the way. According to her, she went to Bilaspur Railway
Station in the van of accused- Umashankar, and from there, she
boarded a train to Delhi and stayed there with accused- Pilaram. She
clearly stated that she went with the accused persons voluntarily. Apart
from this, PW-3 (father of the prosecutrix) also stated that his
daughter/prosecutrix had gone to Delhi with accused- Pilaram. He
further stated that the prosecutrix had informed her sister that she was
going to Delhi. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the prosecutrix
had gone with the accused persons on her own free will. Thus, from the
above evidence, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident, victim
herself left the house and voluntarily went to Delhi and also informed her
sister about the same. Since the prosecutrix (PW-2) herself turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution case, I am of the considered
opinion that the learned trial Court, after properly appreciating the
evidence available on record, was justified in acquitting the
accused/respondents of the charges leveled against them.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus
State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive
of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in
a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;'
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal
and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra),
the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and
possible view. In absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
11. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal by the Appellant/State against the
acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Prakash
