1 2025:CGHC:36070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 19 of 2020 Malti Chouhan D/o Shri Set Kumar Chouhan, aged about 22 years, R/o Village - Navapali, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil and District - Raigarh Chhattigarh. ... Appellant. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through S. H. O. of The Police Station A.J.K. Tahsil and District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Sachin Soni S/o Shri Gopal Soni, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Navapali, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil and District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Res No.1/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) (for short the "SC/ST Act") in Special Criminal Case Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.07.28 10:15:55 +0530 2 under the Atrocities Act No.48/2018 in connection with Crime No.307/2018, whereby, the respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 354 and 323 (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (w) (i) and 3 (2) (v) (a) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant/prosecutrix (PW- 1) aged 20 years has lodged a written complaint (Ex.P-1) on 27.08.2018 at Police Station Chakradharnagar to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 27.08.2018 at about 8 pm when she went for fetching water from bore-well in front of her house, the respondent/accused came there and caught hold of her hands and forcefully dragged her near his house. When she raised hue and cry, her family members and Rajendra Chauhan(PW-4) reached to the spot and intervened. It is also alleged in the complaint that one year prior also the respondent/accused has acted in similar fashion, for which, the villagers have compromised the matter, however, after one year again when the prosecutrix returned to her house, the accused committed the said offence with her. It is also stated that relatives of the respondent/accused have committed Maar-peet with Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4). 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the respondent on the same day at about 10:25 pm at Police Station Chakradharnagar. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Caste Certificate of the prosecutrix (Ex.P-5) was seized 3 vide property seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Prosecutrix was medically examined by doctor (PW-3) who found abrasion in left arm of size 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. and torn toenail, and proved the medical report vide Ex.P-7. Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4) was also examined by doctor (PW-3) who gave his report vide Ex.P-8 and found abrasion and swelling on the leg of Rajendra Chauhan. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offences mentioned in initial paragraph of this judgment. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication. He has also taken a defence that prosecutrix' father, brother and her family members have committed Maar-peet with him, for which, he lodged a report at Police Station vide FIR (Ex.D-1). He has also filed MLC reports of the victim in the said case vide Ex.D-1 to D-5. The said documents have been proved by Assistant Sub Inspector Dinesh Bahidar (DW- 01). 6. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the appellant of all the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant/complainant/prosecutrix has preferred this acquittal appeal. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though material evidence is available on record to establish that the respondent No.2/accused has committed the said offences. 8. On other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence. She also submits that the State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10.From perusal of written report (Ex.P-1) made by the appellant/prosecutrix (PW-1), it appears that prior to one year of the incident, the respondent/accused misbehaved with her for which settlement was arrived at between the parties in front of villagers. It is also apparent that relation between the respondent/accused and family of the prosecutrix was not good. In the complaint, the prosecutrix has also stated that relatives of the accused have beaten Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4). However, Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4) in his evidence has deposed that the respondent/accused has assaulted him by using club, however, he has not stated that any of relatives of the respondent has committed Maar-peet with him. 11.Further, prosecutrix/appellant (PW-1) in her evidence nowhere stated that during the period of said incident the 5 respondent/accused or his relatives have beaten Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4) and also not stated regarding any injuries. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has made certain exaggeration in the evidence that the respondent/accused has torn her clothes, but no statement has been made in this regard by Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4). 12.On the contrary, the respondent/accused has taken a specific defence that the prosecutrix and her family members in order to take revenge have implicated him in the present case. He has taken a defence that on the same day, dispute arose between the family members of the accused and family of the prosecutrix for which an FIR No.306/2018 was lodged before the Police Station Chakradhar wherein he has stated that relative of the prosecutrix used to abuse in filthy language after consuming alcohol. On the date of incident, when he has objected for the same, prosecutrix' father, Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4) and her family members have beaten the respondent/accused and his family members. He has also filed MLC report vide Ex.D-1 to D-5 of five injured persons. The documents filed by the defence was proved by Assistant Sub Inspector (DW-1). 13.Apart from the aforesaid, mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her grandmother (PW-8) have denied the fact regarding Maar-peet between the family members of the prosecutrix and the accused. Further, Rajendra Chauhan (PW-4) categorically admitted the fact in his cross-examination that Maar-peet was committed by both 6 the sides and family members of both prosecutrix as well as respondent/accused have sustained injuries. 14.In the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala [(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 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 than 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 7 judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 15.Reverting back to the present case, it is quite vivid that though house of the accused and prosecutrix' house was situated near each other, however, relations between both of the family members were not cordial and accused has also lodged an FIR against the family members of the prosecutrix for the incident which occurred on the same day. Moreover, the trial Court has also observed that though houses of the prosecutrix and accused were situated near each other and other persons mights have also present there, however, the prosecutrix did not make any efforts to produce other witnesses and rather examined interested witnesses who are her relatives in support of the prosecution case. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the happening of the incident and also with regard to the fact that who reached firstly at the spot. It is also established from the evidence that there was old dispute between the parties. 16.Further, in the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. [(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 8 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 admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. 17.Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court herein-above, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned findings arrived at by the trial Court and moreover, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. 18.In the result, the Acquittal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay