1 2025:CGHC:20052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 869 of 2024 Virendra Shrivastava S/o. N.K. Shrivastava Aged About 38 Years Near Talvar Bhavan, Subhash Nagar, Durg, Taluka- Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Narendra Deshmukh S/o. Khamhan Singh Aged About 45 Years Guru Ghasidas Chowk, Purani Basti, Near Murli Banjare House, Kohka, Bhilai, District- Durg, Taluka- Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : In person. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 01.05.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg in Criminal Case No.7889/2015 whereby, learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondent/accused for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC. Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.06 14:19:19 +0530 2 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the Appellant/Complainant has preferred a complaint case making an averment inter alia that the Respondent/accused has entered into an agreement (Ex.C-1) with him on 18.11.2013 for selling his house and shop situated at Plot No.437, admeasuring area 500 sq.ft, Pardesi Chowk, Ramnagar, Tahsil and District Durg for consideration of Rs.8 lacs and on the same day, the Complainant has paid earnest money of Rs.6,40,000/- in cash. It was further agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid at the time of registry. Though Respondent/accused has further orally agreed to 6 months’ time for registry but has failed to execute the same in favour of the Complainant up till 2015, therefore, the Appellant/Complainant has lodged a police complaint against him vide Ex.C-2 and a communication under Section 155 Cr.P.C for non-cognizable offence has been communicated on 07.04.2015 vide Ex.C-3. Thereafter, the present complaint has been preferred on 20.04.2015. 3. In order to prove his case, the Appellant/Complainant has examined himself and another witness namely Ravi Dubey (CW-2) and exhibited 4 documents. 4. Learned trial Court has, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charge mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal has been filed. 5. Shri Gupta submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case in its proper perspective and the finding arrived therein is not just and proper and prays to allow the Appeal. 3 6. On the contrary, Respondent/accused appearing in person has opposed the aforesaid submission and supported the judgment impugned. He, however, submits that he has not received any cash from the Appellant/Complainant. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and the Respondent/accused who appeared in person, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care. 8. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 9. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of 4 innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 10. Drifting back to the facts of the present case, the Appellant/Complainant admits in the cross-examination that he is carrying out the business of vehicle finance and his witness Ravi Dubey (CW-2) also admits it. The Appellant/Complainant has denied the suggestion that for vehicle finance, he has obtained agreement (Ex.C-1) from the Respondent/accused. Further, the Appellant/Complainant 5 admits the fact that he has not filed any document which shows that he has entered into agreement with the Respondent/accused. This Court has gone through the documents filed by the Appellant/Complainant which did not show that the subject property was received by the Respondent/accused by way of family partition and it appears that the Complainant is not a prudent purchaser. Further, the Complainant has deposed that he has given advance money of Rs.6,40,000/- in cash at the house of the Respondent/accused but he has not obtained any receipt from the Respondent/accused and this fact has clearly been admitted by Ravi Dubey (CW-2). Further, the Complainant has also failed to explain the source from where he has arranged such a huge amount and in his cross-examination, his financial capacity has been questioned as he was earning only Rs.7,500/- with incentive per month from the finance Company. Though he has offered an explanation that certain amount has been given by his father, but he has not examined him. 11. Considering the aforesaid infirmities and irregularities, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one and therefore, no interference is required. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya