1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 444 of 2025 1 - Harivallabh Agrawal S/o. Shri Ramdayal Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o. 323-A, Sundar Nagar, P/S D.D. Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gyan Singh S/o. Shri Ram Singh Aged About 48 Years 3 - Narsingh S/o. Shri Gyan Singh Aged About 28 Years 4 - Maan Singh S/o. Shri Gyan Singh Aged About 29 Years Respondents No.2 to 4 are R/o. Ram Manohar Lohiya Nagar, Opposite Diamond Tree, Mova, P/S Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For State : Shri Jai Prakash Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 17.02.2026 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.2019 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Appeal No.367/2018 whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No.8371/2015, has been dismissed. 2. Initially the present appellant filed Criminal Revision No.1321 of 2019 and vide order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the said Criminal Revision was converted into present Acquittal Appeal. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.02.19 11:39:57 +0530 2 3. The case of prosecution is that on 09.05.2015 the complainant Harivallabh Agrawal, PW-1, lodged a written complaint Ex.P/1 to the police of Police Station Pandari, Raipur with the allegation that he was being informed by his Watchman that accused persons are breaking the lock of shop and at about 12 Noon when he reached at Mova, he saw that the accused persons are trying to possess his shop. Some altercation took place between them and accused persons threatened him which he reported to the police resulting into filing of FIR Ex.P/2 against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 448,294,506,34 IPC. Spot Panchnama Ex.P/4 was prepared by the Police and spot map Ex.P/3 was also prepared. One broken lock was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. The accused persons were arrested on 09.05.2025. 4. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, for the offence under Sections 448,294,506,34 IPC. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Sections 453,294,506-II IPC against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the allegations and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the allegation against the respondents, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of accused persons under Section 313 CrPC have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Two defence witnesses Gyan Singh Bahadur, DW-1 (accused) and Sant Ram @ Rahul Netam, DW-2 were examined by the accused persons. 3 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court acquitted the respondents accused persons from all the offences vide judgment dated 07.09.2018 holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and they are entitled for acquittal. The judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2018 was challenged by the complainant by filing Criminal Appeal under the proviso of Section 372 of CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which was also dismissed vide its judgment dated 22.08.2019. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the State also filed an Acquittal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge bearing Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2018 against the said judgment of acquittal dated 07.09.2018 passed by the trial court. The said appeal of State was also dismissed on 22.08.2019 along with Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2018 which was filed by the complainant. However, dismissal of said appeal has not been assailed by the State in any further proceeding. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are corroborative and supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons have committed the offence as there is un-rebutted evidence of the complainant as well as eyewitness who saw the accused persons breaking the lock of the shop owned by the complainant and tried to possess the said shop. PW-4, Bholu is eyewitness to the incident who informed about the incident to complainant and immediately thereafter the complainant reached on the spot and saw the incident, yet the trial court believed on trivial discrepancy and 4 acquitted the accused persons which makes the judgment of acquittal perverse. He would also submit that pendency of civil suit with respect to adjacent land of the subject shop would not affect the merits of the present case as the subject property in both these proceedings are different, yet benefit of pendency of civil suit is given to respondents/accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial court. 10. From perusal of impugned judgment passed by trial court it transpires that trial court has considered the discrepancies in the evidence made by the complainant PW-1, Harivallabh Agrawal and PW-4, Bholu Ram, who is alleged to be an eyewitness to the incident. In paragraph 12 of his judgment, the trial court has observed as under: “pwaafd vkjksihx.k ,oa izkFkhZ gfjoYyHk ds e/; iwoZ ls okn fookn@jaft’k gksuk izdV gqvk gS rFkk v-lk- 3 iznhi vxzoky ?kVu LFky ij v-lk- gfjoYyHk ds lkFk gh ekSds ij x;k Fkk] ftlds dkj.k og ?kVuk dk Lora= lk{kh gksuk izdV ugh gksrk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ o vkjksihx.k dss e/; iwoZ jaft’k ds RkF; dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, v-lk- 1 gfjoYYkHk ,oa v-lk- 3 iznhi vxzoky ds lk{; dh lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS fd mu ij fdruk fo’okl fd;k tk ldrk gSA v-lk-1 gfjoYyHk us vius izfrijh{k.k esa pkSdhnkj Hkksyw }kjk muds eksckbZy ij 11 cts lwpuk fn;s tkus ij muds }kjk iqfyl esa Qksu dj lwpuk fn;k tkuk ,oa mlds ekSds ij igqpus ds iwoZ gh ?kVuk LFky ij iwfyl dk ekStwn gksuk crk;k gSA pwWfd v-lk- 3 çnhi vxzoky }kjk viuh lk{; esa ?kVuk LFky ij çkFkhZ gfjoYyHk ds lkFk igqapuk crk;k gSA bl çdkj v-lk- 1 gfjoYyHk ,oa v-lk- 3 çnhi vxzoky }kjk ekSds ij iqfyl ds igqaprs ds i'pkr tkuk çdV gksrk gSA iqfyl dh ekStwnxh esa vkjksihx.k }kjk fookfnr nqdku esa ços'k dj lkekuksa dks Qsads tkus ckcRk dksbZ dFku foospuk vf/kdkjh v0lk0 5 f=os.kh çlkn f}osnh }kjk viuh lk{; esa ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh ,sls fdlh iqfyl vf/kdkjh dh lk{; vfHk;kstu }kjk vius i{k leFkZu esa djkbZ xbZ gS] ftlds le{k vkjksihx.k }kjk nqdku ds vanj ços'k dj lkeku Qsadus dh dk;Zokgh dh gksA ,slh ifjfLFkfr iqfyl ds ekSds ij igqapus ds i'pkr ekSds ij dksbZ ?kVuk dkfjr gksuk çdV ugh gksrk gSA vr% v-lk 1 gfjoYyHk ,oa v-lk- ३ çnhi vxzoky ds le{k vkjksihx.k }kjk nqdku esa ços'k dj lkekuksa dks Qsads tkus ckcRk mä lk{khx.k dh lk{; lafnXèk gks tkrh gSA” 5 11. From perusal of evidence of PW-1 it reveals that he received information from his Watchman Bholu Ram about the incident and when he along with his relative Prateek Agrawal reached on the spot, he saw that all the accused persons were already entered into his shop and they started abusing him with filthy language. The incident was witnessed by other persons of vicinity and then he lodged the report. In cross examination, he admits that with respect to ownership of the subject shop, the documents have been given to the police, but was not produced in the charge sheet. He denied ownership of accused persons over the subject shop. He also denied that he illegally possessed the shop of accused persons. He further admits that with respect to adjacent plot, there was a civil dispute between him and the accused persons. He did not know about any complaint case against him which was filed by accused Gyan Singh. However, he admits about pendency of civil suit between them. He admits that daughter in law of accused Gyan Singh lodged a report under Section 354 IPC against him. 12. PW-4, Bholu Ram, have stated in his evidence that at the time when he had gone to the shop of complainant PW-1 Harivallabh, he saw that accused persons were breaking the lock of shop of the complainant and when he tried to stop them, the abused and threatened him. Thereafter, he informed the complainant Harivallabh about the incident trough telephone. When the complainant Harivallabh came there, he too were threatened and abused by accused persons. In cross examination, he admits that he is working as Watchman with the complainant Harivallabh since 15 years at Rajkamal Dal Mill, Mova. He was going to said place bypassing the place of incident and Rakamal 6 Dal Mill is at about distance of 1 and ½ KM. He disclosed the police that at the time of incident he had gone to subject shop for cleaning and if it is not there in his police statement, he does not know the reason. He admits that accused persons reside in the backside of the subject shop and he did not know about any dispute between the parties with respect to property. 13. Another eyewitness PW-3, Pradeep Agrawal, who accompanied the complainant Harivallabh, have stated that he along with Harivallabh went to subject shop and then Harivallabh asked the accused persons as to why they have entered into his shop, then the accused persons started altercation and abused them. At about 11 AM Harivallabh received a telephonic information and then the proceeded towards Police Station Mova where they met with Bholu. He shown is ignorance as to Bholu broke open the lock. He states unaware about any civil litigation pending between the parties. 14. The accused persons while giving their evidence relied upon document Ex.D/1 which is the copy of the plaint of Civil Suit filed by him against the complainant Harivallabh Agrawal, a complaint case filed by him against complainant Harivallabh Agrawal before the CJM Raipur for the offence under Section 294,323,341,342,447,506 IPC Ex.D/2, Certificate issued by Ward Member of Ward No.27 Mova Raipur, Ex.D/3 and the report made to the police against the complainant Harivallabh. 15. The trial court after adverting entire evidence considered that prosecution could not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt. The view taken by the trial court is one of the plausible view which cannot be said to be 7 perverse or illegal under the facts and circumstances as well as evidence available on record. 16. 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:- "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." 17. 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 judgment 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.” 18. 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 view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 19. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned trial court and being very 8 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, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 20. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder