1 2025:CGHC:893-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1500 of 2022 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dadhi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Arjun Sahu S/o Late Shri Awadhram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bandhi, Thana Dadhi, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 07.01.2025 Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1 Heard on application for condonation of delay in filing the instant application seeking leave to appeal. 2 On due consideration, the application is allowed and delay in filing the application is condoned. 3 Present application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC has been filed by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara District Bemetara in Sessions Case No.14/2020 whereby the Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.10 13:58:12 +0530 2 respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 4 Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant Manoj Kumar Sahu, PW-2 gave a merg intimation to the police that deadbody of his cousin sister Daneshwari Sahu was found in the terrace of her house in burnt condition. Near deadbody, Kerosene jerrycan and matchbox was also found. Inquest of the body was prepared in presence of the witnesses and deadbody was sent for its postmortem to District Hospital, Bemetara where PW-11 Dr. Jyoti Anil Jasathi have conducted postmortem of deadbody and gave its report Ex.P/9 and opined that cause of death is asphyxia caused by gagging, death appears to be homicidal in nature and burns appear to be postmortem. Sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Specimens were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, Raipur. During her postmortem, lacerated wound measuing 2x0.5x05 cm was found over posterior commisure anterior to anus having clotted blood and lacerated wound measuring 2.5x0.5x0.5cm over left labia minora having clotted blood were noticed by the doctor. The statement of witnesses were recorded; the respondent was arrested and charge sheet was filed against him for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Charge was framed against the respondent for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed trial. 5 After examination of prosecution witnesses and hearing them, the trial court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offence vide judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2022 against which present petition for grant of leave has been filed by the State. 3 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that the trial court has erroneously acquitted the respondent ignoring the evidence produced by the prosecution. There are sufficient evidence available in the case to connect the respondent in the offence in question. Death of deceased was found to be homicidal in nature and postmortem injuries were found. The respondent is the father of deceased who was unhappy with the behavior of his deceased daughter. The incident is occurred in the terrace of the house of respondent as well as deceased and there was no possibility of entering any third person in their house, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable, yet the trial court has acquitted the respondent holding that chain of circumstances is not complete. Since there is ample evidence against the respondent in the case, the application may be allowed and leave to appeal may be granted against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7 We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of case. 8 True it is that death of deceased is found to be homicidal in nature and postmortem burns were found on her body, but the prosecution has to prove that the present respondent has committed the offence and he has murdered the deceased. The witnesses have admitted in their evidence that boundary wall of their houses is very short in height and anyone can enter after jumping across the boundary wall from outside to inside. The trial court has also considered and held that though the respondent was unhappy with the behavior of her daughter on the ground of her having love affair with a boy, but there was every possibility that deceased met with that boy in her terrace and some 4 dispute arose between them at that time and after after committing her rape, he may have committed murder of the deceased. The possibility of entering any other person in the house is also considered by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Further, along with the present respondent, other inmates were also there in the family and none of them have stated that at the relevant point of time they have seen them together. 9 The Trial court after considering the fact that there was no sufficient evidence available on record against the respondent to convict him for murder of his daughter and concealing the evidence, held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent and acquitted him from the alleged offence. 10 An order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or consideration of the evidence was perverse. Even if two conclusions are possible on basis of the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused has to be taken and it will not be proper for the appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal merely because it may be of a difference opinion. Failure to consider admissible evidence or admitting inadmissible evidence are some of the other grounds on which the order of acquittal may be interfered with. In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances exist presently warranting interference. 11 Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:- 5 "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 12 In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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 ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 13 Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible 6 view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 14 After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 15 For the foregoing reasons, the present application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Acquittal Appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder