State Of Madhya Pradesh(Now C.G.) vs R. D. Rajak

This appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner/State against the impugned judgment of dated 05.07.1999, whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 380 of the IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh), in Criminal Case No. 604/1997.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that respondent R.D. Rajak was posted in Chilpi Timber Depot as a Ranger whose work was to allow picking up woods meant for sale after verifying transit pass to be issued by D.F.O. and other requisites documents. Upon releaving the Depot Incharge Mishra, one Pataskar has taken charge of it. In the meanwhile, respondent R.D. Rajak was In­ charge for the exit of woods. Thereafter, on being verified the record it came to forefront that the wood which was already sold or about to sell has been existed from Depot. Further, the wood that was not sold also found to be missing. Thereafter, concerned Conservative of Forest was informed though the D.F.O. Omkar. An inquiry was conducted by D.F.O. Omkar whereupon it was found that it was respondent R.D. Rajak who is responsible for the existence of the said Timber logs from depot after issuing the transit pass. So, an FIR was lodged against the responsible persons/respondents No. 1 to 7. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed and charges were framed against 7 respondents. Against respondent R.D. Rajak charges were framed under Sections 409, 467 & 468 of IPC and against all the other accused/respondents charge was framed under Section 380 of IPC.

In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses. Statements of the respondents herein were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied guilt.

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges against which the appeal has been preferred.

Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned Dy. Government Advocate would submit that prosecution has examined total 21 witnesses in support of prosecution and all witnesses have categorically stated against the accused persons but the learned trial Court absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent from the aforesaid charges by recording the finding which is perverse to the record. It is further submitted that respondents forged the official documents of forest department but the learned trail Court overlooked the gravity of the offence. Learned trial Court erred in not relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution although there was sufficient evidence against the respondent, therefore, the finding and conclusion drawn by the Court below are liable to be dismissed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no documentary evidence available on record which can prove the guilt of respondents. Learned trial Court found that S.D. Omkar was responsible for all the irregularities but other persons were held responsible for missing the logs and forest department recovered the money from the responsible person. Respondent No. 1 R.D. Rajak was exonerated from departmental inquiry. As such, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and in para 22 found that S.D. Omkar and other officers are responsible for the irregularities in misappropriation. Respondent R.D. Rajak was exonerated from the departmental inquiry and prosecution witnesses also did not identify the other respondents. Ramadhar (PW­15), Preetam Das (PW­16) & Gajanand (PW­17) all stated in their statement that they did not know the Truck number as well as about the driver of the truck. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove this fact that missing logs were seized from the possession of respondents so, learned trial Court rightly finds that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730. held in paras 11 ­12 as under:­

As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh [Surajpal Singh V. State, AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR p.54, para 7)

“7... the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trail court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

12.Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:­

• There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

• The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

• Thought, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

• Merely because the appellate court on re­ appreciation and re­evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

The findings recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondents from the offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 380 of IPC is based on material available on record. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.