1 2025:CGHC:61156-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 35 of 2013 State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant/Appellant Versus 1 - Rajkumar @ Chunnu, S/o Patiram Kashyap, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Tharakhpur, Ps Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur at Present R/o at Sector III/A, Qtr. No. 284, Balco, Distt. Korba (C.G.). 2 - Rahul S/o Dharmendra, aged about 23 years, R/o near Red Water Tank, Dharbhanga, (Bihar). 3 - Deepak Soni @ Gabbar S/o Babulal Soni, aged about 28 years, R/o Power House Road, Korba, in the house of Dr. Banshilal Mahto, Korba (C.G.) ... Non- Applicants/Respondents For State/Appellant : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. G.A. For Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 83/2010, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 395 and Section 412 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2010 at around 8 pm, all accused persons/respondents armed with country-made pistols entered the house of the complainant Vachaspati Pandey, where his wife Kamla Pandey and daughter Lalima Tiwari were at home. Finding the ladies alone, the respondents tied them with the help of sarees and telephone wires, thereby looted gold, silver ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 3,250/- including household articles total amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused respondents by the complainant, upon which a case was registered against the accused respondents. During the investigation, the accused persons were apprehended by P.S. Balco, and they confessed their guilt. Thereafter, the Police Station Balco seized cloths and weapons of offence used in the commission of crime. 3. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 395, 412 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent No.1 to 3 of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3 4. Learned counsel for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court should have convicted the accused/respondents for the full term prescribed in the charges levelled against them. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that PW-08 Smt. Kamla Pandey and her daughter PW-09 Lalima Tiwari have duly identified the accused persons/respondents as a culprit before the trial Court. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that the weapon of offence and other seized articles were seized at the instance of the accused/respondents. Learned trial Court has given more weightage to the minor contradictions and omissions occurred in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which are irrelevant in the present case. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, in its true perspective and rightly acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/ respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, looking to the limited scope of interference in the acquittal appeal, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 395, 412 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the aforesaid charges levelled against them. It is further evident from the record of the learned trial Court that the charge-sheet was filed only against 03 accused persons/respondents. 8. For ready reference, Section 391 of Indian Penal Code is held as under:- Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Dacoity):- When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”. 9. As per the complainant PW-07 Vachaspati Pandey, on 24.01.2010 he was in his shop until 7 pm. Thereafter, he went to Darri to pick up some supplies for his shop and stopped there to buy vegetables as it was weekly market. He further stated that when he left for Darri, he entrusted the shop to his daughter and the shop was open. He further stated that two hours later, when he returned to his shop, his shop’s shutters were down, as his shop usually closes at 9:30 pm, He went through the side door, looked into the room, and saw three people tied separately with their mouths gagged: his daughter, his employee Suresh, and a third person he didn't know. He removed the cloths from their mouths. Three of them then reported the incident to him, and he learned that an armed robbery had occurred. Thereafter, he went 5 straight to Police Station Balco without wasting any further time to lodge written complaint vide Ex. P/05 in which he written the details of the valuables which have been robbed from his place i.e., 3 tola gold, 50 tola silver, Rs. 3,250/- cash, one camera and 42 items from his ration shop and admitted his signature on B to B part of Ex. P/05. He further stated that 5 people came for looting his shop. On the basis of the written complaint, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex. P/06 and he admitted his signature on B to B part. 10. PW-08 Smt. Kamla Pandey, stated that her husband went to Darri to buy groceries on 24.01.2010 and around 7:30 pm three men approached her daughter from the shop’s shutter and were asking for Range Pan Masala and two other people came to the side counter, at that time PW-08 was busy in the kitchen and her daughter called out her. The three men pulled down the shop’s shutter. By then, she had reached the shop. Thereafter, they took a gun from their possession and warned her and others not to make any noise and took them to the central room. As they approached the main door from the central room, two other men arrived, armed with guns i.e., they were surrounded by 5 persons. Soon, they made some of them sit on the sofa and others on the cot Thereafter, the group demanded the residents' wealth, and she told them to take whatever they find in the house and leave. She further stated that she identified the accused persons in the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) and admitted her signature on B to B part of T.I.P memo vide Ex. P/2. In para 08 of her cross-examination, she admitted that the three persons who had come to her house were masked and their faces were covered. In para 10 of her cross- 6 examination, she admitted that she did not recognize the five persons in the jail. 11. PW-09 Smt. Lalima Tiwari, stated that on 24.01.2010, her father Vachaspati Pandey was not at home around 7:30 pm, at that time, three men approached her from the shop’s shutter and were asking for Range Pan Masala and two other people came to the side counter, as she was turning to the other side to give the same, the three men pulled down the shop’s shutter and took guns out from their possession. In para 02 of her examination-in-chief she stated that one accused person uncovered his face to throw plum seeds (ber ki gutli) while closing the shutter, later she identified him before the learned trial Court as Deepak Soni, but in her cross-examination she has stated that she narrated the aforesaid fact at the time of her police statement vide D/03, however she cannot explain if this fact is not mentioned in the same. 12. PW-01 Shyamlal Yadav has stated that on the date of incident, 05 dacoits went inside the house of the complainant Vachaspati Pandey, around 8 pm, he went to purchase Gutkha and and at that time all 05 accused persons held his hair, took him inside the house, made him sit on a cot, and tied him up, gagging his mouth. PW-02 Suresh Kumar came in search of his friend, Shyamlal. As he received no response for some time, he entered the house where Shyamlal had gone. There, two accused persons tied him up using telephone wires and gagged his mouth. Both PW-01 and PW-02 admitted that they had been called to the police station regarding the offense, and were threatened that if 7 they did not provide details, they would be falsely implicated in the case. 13. From close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses, it is clear that PW- 08 Smt. Kamla Pandey and PW-09 Smt. Lalima Tiwari have stated that three persons entered their shop whose faces were covered, pulled down the shop’s shutter and took guns out from their possession and then tied them by gagging their mouth and committed dacoity. Written complaint Ex. P/05 and F.I.R. Ex. P/06 were lodged against unknown persons. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not supported prosecution case, learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly finds that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. So, it is clear that there is no legally admissible or clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against the accused persons. It is also clear that charge-sheet was filed only against 03 persons, not 05 or more persons. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its 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:- “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; 8 (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 demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 15. In the light of above cited judgment, in the present case also it is clear that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 3 of the charges so levelled against them. 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. 16. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE U.K. Raju