1 2025:CGHC:1816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 337 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the In-charge Police Station AJAK, District Janjgir -Champa, Chhattisgarh -- Appellant versus Ghanshyam Kashyap S/o Sambodh Kashyap, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kandra, Police Outpost- Pantora, Police Station- Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent/Accused For accused /State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate. For Respondent : None present. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 10.01.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This acquittal appeal is filed by the accused/State against the judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Special Case No. 04/2017, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Hence, the present acquittal appeal. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.01.14 05:18:35 +0530 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/victim (PW-01) lived with her parents at Village- Kandra and studied in class 10th at Deori School. On the date of incident i.e., 27.11.2011, she went to the Mill of one Mahesh Kashyap to get paddy thrashed, however the mill was closed. Mahesh Kashyap opened the mill and went away. The complainant/victim kept the paddy inside, at that time, the accused came through the motorcycle, parked his motorcycle outside and entered the mill and asked the complainant/victim for doing wrong work, however, on refusal of the complainant/victim, the accused caught the hands of the complainant/victim and started to press her chest. The complainant /victim started screaming for help, then, one Gend Singh and Ajay have came to the place of incident and thereafter, the accused ran away through his motorcycle. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her parents, and she went along with her father to lodged the report (Ex. P/1) at police station against the accused. During the investigation, statements of the complainant/victim (PW-01) and other witnesses were recorded, caste certificate was seized vide Ex. P/4 of the complainant/victim (PW-01), spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/2 and accused person was arrested vide Ex. P/5. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate against the accused and thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and the accused person was put to trial for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After hearing of both parties, learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the said charges levelled against him. 3 4. Before the learned trial Court, prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and statement of the accused person/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charges. Hence, this appeal filed by the Appellant/State. 6. The learned counsel for the State/accused submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in a cryptic and laconic manner without appreciating the material available on record. The impugned judgment is absolutely bad-in-law as the same has been passed without appreciating the material available on record. He further submits that before learned Trial Court, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all prosecution witnesses categorically stated against the accused person, but, the learned Trial Court passed the judgment of acquittal in a mechanical manner, which is liable to be set aside and accused/respondent is liable to be convicted for the said offence. 7. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. 8. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 9. It is vivid from record of learned Trial Court that learned Trial Court framed charge under Section Section 354 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused person/respondent. Prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused/respondent and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused person/respondent of the aforesaid charge. 10. It is quite vivid from the record of learned Trial Court that learned Trial Court found that the statement of the complainant/victim (PW-01) is not reliable, however, independent witnesses were also not supported the prosecution case and the learned Trial Court also found that there was some previous enmity between the complainant’s mother and accused’s wife with regard to the panchayat elections, accused had also bad relationship with the complainant’s father and the the learned Trial court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of all prosecution witnesses and found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, findings recorded by learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- 5 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 must 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 6 demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 12. In the light of above judgment, in this present case also, the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated evidence of all witnesses and rightly acquitted the accused/respondent. The view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. As such, this acquittal appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL