1 2025:CGHC:11551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 585 of 2024 Smt. Sarita Bharti W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bharti Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Sanjay Nagar Birra, Police Station Birra, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). (Victim) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ajak Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). 2 - Devnarayan S/o Late Maniram Aged About 53 Years. 3 - Sushil Kashyap W/o Devnarayan Kashyap Aged About 45 Years. 4 - Mamta Kashyap D/o Devnarayan Kashyap Aged About 24 Years. 5 - Ruchita Kashyap D/o Devnarayan Kashyap Aged About 22 Years. 6 - Payal Kashyap D/o Devnarayan Kashyap Aged About 20 Years. All are accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6 are R/o Village Loharsi Talabpara Police Station Shivrinarayan, Present Address - Village Birra Ward No. 07, Police Station Birra, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, PL. For Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 07.03.2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A) (i) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Jangir, Distt- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.), in Special Session Case No.73/2022, whereby the respondent Nos.2 to 6/accused have been acquitted from the charges under the SC/ST Act and they have been only awarded fine amounts under other charges of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant/Sarita Bharti (complainant/victim) has living with her mother Smt. Geeta at village Birra, she has fencing boundary in her land situated inside of their house. On 20/07/2022, when appellant/victim went to saw the said fencing boundary with her mother, they saw that respondent No.3/Sushila alongwith her son & daughters were digging the foundation on the said land, which has been objected by the appellant, to which, accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6 (Devnarayan, his wife & Children) started abusing the appellant and her mother and also committed the marpit and threatened to kill them. Thereafter, appellant has submitted a written complainant in 3 the Police Station- AJAK Janjgir- Champa, and on the basis of her complaint, the Police registered the FIR against the accused persons for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet/challan has been filed and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6 for offence under Sections 147, 294, 506, 323 (twice) read with Sections 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. Statement of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 6 from the charges under the SC/ST Act and only awarded fine amount under other charges of IPC. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/victim submits that the impugned judgment/order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect as the trial Court has 4 failed to appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses in its true perspective. He further submits that the learned trial Court has committed error in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has been successfully proved his his case through their witnesses, but trial Court has awarded only fine amounts against the accused persons under the offence of IPC and has wrongly been acquitted them from the offence under the charges of SC/ST Act, hence, impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be modified. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6/accused submit that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 6/accused from the charges under the SC/ST Act. There is ample evidence/material available on record to acquit the respondents/accused from the alleged crime/offence. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Recently, 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. 5 Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as follows:- “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 interfere would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 10. The 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. 6 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal being totally devoid of merits the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected/dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-