1 2025:CGHC:30079-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1574 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chowki Tapkara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Shrawan Sai Paikra @ Pillu S/o Muneshwar Sai, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tapkara, Khaksitoli, P.S. Tapkara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.07.2025 1. It transpires from the order dated 23.08.2024 that due to an inadvertent mistake, the application filed by the State for grant of leave to appeal has been admitted though only trial Court was summoned and no bailable warrant was issued, the paper book MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.04 10:38:04 +0530 2 has already been prepared, hence we proceed to hear the State on leave to appeal. 2. I.A. No. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 291 days in filing the instant petition for leave to appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 4. By way of present petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.05.2023 passed by the learned First Upper Sessions Judge, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.30/2022 by which, the respondent / accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 354, 450, 307 of the IPC. 5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the complainant (victim), in the noon time of 19.06.2022 at about 02.30, lodged a complaint at Police Station-Tapkara, District-Jashpur, (C.G.) to the effect that, on 19.06.2022 at about 2.30 AM, she (victim) was alone at home, where the accused (Shrawan Sai) hold the hand of victim and took her inside the house and thrown to the ground with bad intentions. He was suppressed the mouth-voice of prosecutrix "save me" (bachao-bachao), then, he slit her throat with knife, she kicked to him, then, he run away. Due to which, she get injury and blood started coming out from her injury. She holds her injured throat and cried loudly. Her Devrani & Chachi Sas approached the spot, after listening the crying of the prosecutrix and narrated to 3 them about the incident. During, the investigation, Sections 354, 450, 307 of IPC were lodged in the FIR (Ex.P/01), Mauka Naksha- (Ex.P/02), incident place Nazri Naksha-(Ex.P/03), The statements (memorandum statement) of the witnesses- Naksha-(Ex.P/07), incident used article (weapon)- Ex.P/08, query report- Ex.P/10, Arrest warrant panchnama & intimation-Ex.P/13, 14 & 15 & FSL Report intimation- Ex.P/16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 were seized and after completing certain formalities, the accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under aforesaid Sections of the IPC. against the accused respondent was filed before the learned trial Court. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and, therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged under Section U/s 354, 450, 307 of IPC. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned State counsel submits that though the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much limited but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the order of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. The learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offences charged and has not 4 appreciated the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, judgment of acquittal be set aside. Further, the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case conduct of the respondent proves ill-intention of the respondent and, therefore, he ought to have been convicted appropriately by the learned trial Court. In the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court straightway disbelieved the prosecution story though there was statement of witnesses and chain of circumstances and seizure of weapon, injuries found on complainant body, but without appreciating the above fact, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused person from the charges punishable under Section 354, 450, 307 of IPC. 8. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent / accused observing that if the statements of the witnesses presented by the prosecution are considered, the victim (PW-1) complainant, who is the only injured witness of the incident, has stated in her main examination that the accused had slit her throat with a knife, but in the cross-examination she did not stand firm on the said evidence and accepted that the accused had not caused any injury to her and the injury that had occurred in her neck was caused by a blow from some other place. Thus, the victim herself has contradicted her statement regarding the accused causing injury to the victim with a knife. Therefore, the statement of the victim is not acceptable beyond doubt. Apart from this, the victim has also alleged that the accused had intended to outrage her modesty. No statement has been made about dragging her inside the room and 5 throwing her there and other witnesses apart from the victim, PW- 02, PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06 are hearsay witnesses, whose statement is not admissible as legal evidence against the accused on the basis of unreliable evidence of the victim. Although the medical witness has proved the presence of injury caused by a sharp weapon on the neck of the victim, but due to unstable evidence of the victim, the said injury being caused by the accused cannot be accepted beyond doubt. Although the investigating officer and other witnesses have supported their action, but in the absence of direct evidence of the injured witness, other corroborative evidence related to investigation cannot be accepted as substantial legal evidence against the accused. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the accused was acquitted of the charge of the crime under Sections 354, 450, 307 of the IPC. 9. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner / State and other evidence available on record, it cannot held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent / accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet