State of Chhattisgarh vs Mohd. Sahbaj

Considering the fact that record of the trial Court has been received, the default as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

Heard on I.A.No.01/2018, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition is condoned.

Also heard on admission.

The present petition has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the

judgment and order dated 07.02.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.50/2015

acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Sections 148, 341, 294, 506 (Part II), 307/149 and 323/149 of Indian Penal Code.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.04.2015 FIR (Ex.P/12) was lodged by Rana Thakur (PW/4) alleging in it that he and his friend Shailesh

Kumar Yadav (PW/5) were assaulted by the accused/respondents. Based on this, FIR (Ex.P/12) was registered under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 341

and 307/34 IPC against the accused/respondents. Both the injured Rana Thakur (PW/4) and Shailesh Kumar Yadav (PW/5) were medically

examined by Dr. (Ms.) Snehlata Humane (PW/2) who gave her report (Ex.P/8 and P/7) noticing three lacerated wounds and two contusions on the

body of injured Rana Thakur and two contusions on the body of injured Shailesh Kumar Yadav respectively. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial

Judge framed the charges against accused/respondents under Sections 148, 341, 294, 506(Part-II), 307/149 and 323/149 IPC.

So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

false implication.

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the

accused/respondents as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

Counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondents even when there is ample evidence against

them.

We have heard learned State counsel and perused the material available on record.

During trial, both the injured PW/4 and PW/5 have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. They have stated that they sustained

injuries accidentally and were never beaten by anyone.

Considering the statements of two injured (PW/4 and PW/5), where they have not supported the prosecution case, the trial court has come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt and thus acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges

levelled against them. We find no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on

the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has

utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based

on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference

can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant

ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the CRMP preferred by the State/applicant is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

at the admission stage itself leading to refusal of leave to appeal as sought for by the State.