1 2025:CGHC:53274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 395 of 2010 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Bhimrao Bagade S/o Bakhshiji Bagade Aged About 37 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 4, Ambedkar Chowk, Rajnandgaron. 2 - Basant Kumar S/o Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Motipur, Railway Crossing, Rajnandgaon. 3 - Sheikh Ansar S/o Sheikh Arman Musalman Aged About 26 Years R/o Motipur, Ward 2, Rajnandgaon At Present Konthe Road, Rajhara, P S- Rajhara. 4 - Sudama Prasad S/o Kahsisewak Dhobi Aged About 28 Years R/o Devkar, Ps Bhatni, Distt. Bewariya (Up), At Present Ghasidas Nagar, P S- Jamul, Durg, 5 - Medhdas Vaishnav S/o Narottam Das Vaishnav Aged About 30 Years R/o Pendri Ps Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 6 - Anup Sigh S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Hajampur, Ps- Hasi, Distt. Hisar ( Haryana), At Present Hudco Sector, Mig 11/273, Bhilainagar, Durg. 7 - Jankaklal S/o Sukhram Aged About 43 Years R/o Faradfod, Ps- Devari, District- Durg, At Present- Camp-I, Union Office, Ps, Rajhara. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.04 10:46:38 +0530 2 Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respective Respondents : Mr. Aagney Sail and Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. The State has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 22-12-2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 202/1997 by the learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, CG, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353 & 307 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.07.1992 the members of Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha were agitating for 'their certain demands against industrialists in the vicinity of Power House Railway Station at Bhilai. The agitators were 3 to 4 thousand in number including men and women and were carrying lathis & Danda in their hands. The agitation was being led by R/8 & R/7 and others. The agitators were shouting their slogans on the railway track and thereby they created absolute obstruction to the railway traffic, which resulted the stoppage of passenger train and a goods-train. Having received the information, District Police Personnel along with other administrative offices reach 3 at the spot and persuaded the agitators for removing the obstruction from railway track. Having failed to persuade the agitators, Police officials deputed the force to remove them from railway track, but the respondents along with agitators opened assault on the police force and damaged the engine of trains. During the incident one police personnel sustained injuries and sent of medical examination. On the basis of which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.12.2005 acquitted the respondents/accused herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on record. Learned trial Court has misapprehended and miss-appreciated the findings available on record and has arrived an erroneous finding. He further submits that the respondents were agitating on the railway tracks, due to which, disturbance occurred for running of passenger and goods-train. Apart from that, during the course of agitation, the respondents were assaulted the police personnel. Hence, looking to 4 the act committed by the respondents, the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the judgment of acquittal is well merited and does not require any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 8. This is appeal against the judgment of acquittal filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. in exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 378(1) or under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. The appellate Courts are required to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box and also required to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonably person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of C.Antony v. Raghavan Nair (AIR 2003 SC 182), unless the High Court arrives at definite conclusion that the findings recorded by trial Court are perverse, it would not substitute its own view on a totally different perspective and also as held by the Supreme Court in Ramanand Yadav V. Prabhunath Jha (AIR 2004 SC 1053), the appellate Court in considering the appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and 5 substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 10. The scope of interference in appeals against acquittal is well settled. In Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 1083), the Supreme Court has held in para 6 as under:- “. . . . the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere within an order of acquittal even if it 6 is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous." 11. 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 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 interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. In the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022 8 SCC 440), the Supreme Court held as under: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. 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. 7 Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 13. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal, the High Courts or the appellate Courts are fully empowered to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The appellate Court is required to discuss the grounds given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. 14. In the present case, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed as follows:- “ PW-7 B.B.S. Thakur stated in para 3 of examination-in- chief that a meeting was held between the Commissioner, Raipur and D.R.G. with Anup Singh (leader) for redressal of the grievance of the agitator, but the meeting was not successful, due to which, agitators started more aggressive. Thereafter, strictly order was issued to stop the agitation, but the same was not stopped. When the agitators began pelting stones, in view of that situation, tear gas and a lathi charge were used in an attempt to disperse the satyagrahis, but this effort did not succeed and the crowd became violent. In between, A.R. Gawande, Assistant Sub-Inspector, was assaulted. Then, the 8 Additional District Magistrate (A.D.M.) ultimately gave the order to open fire. In view of above, statement, this witness did not clearly stated that it was the accused/respondents who assaulted and caused injuries to A.R. Gawande, Assistant Sub-Inspector.” 15. PW-10 S.S. Salam (SDOP) stated in his evidence that he has not done any enquiry in the present case. He did not say anything regarding the incident. Hence, the respondents have assaulted ASI A.R. Gawande, has not proved by this witness. 16. Defence witness M.A. Ibrahim stated in his evidence that he admitted the fact that he has participated in the agitation and he has suffered injuries on gun firing by the police. He further stated in his evidence that stampede occurred in the place of incident. 17. PW-5 Rameshwar Prasad Mishra, Head Constable stated in his evidence that during the course of agitation by the respondents, stampede took place. This fact has been supported by the PW-7 B.B.S. Thakur, ASI. 18. PW-7 B.B.S. Thakur, in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief, stated that a meeting was held between the Commissioner of Raipur, the D.R.G., and Anup Singh, the leader of the agitators, to resolve their grievances. However, the meeting did not succeed, and the agitators became more aggressive. Strict orders were then issued to stop the agitation, but the crowd did not disperse. When the agitators started pelting stones, the police used tear gas and a lathi charge to control 9 the situation, but these measures failed, and the crowd turned violent. During the chaos, A.R. Gawande, Assistant Sub-Inspector, was assaulted. Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate (A.D.M.) finally ordered the police to open fire. 19. After examining the evidence and testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses, it is evident that when the grievances of the agitators were not redressed, the protest turned more aggressive. To control the situation and prevent further damage, the Additional District Magistrate (A.D.M.) ordered police firing and lathi charge on the agitators. During this disturbance, Assistant Sub-Inspector A.R. Gawande sustained injuries. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish through any of the witnesses that the respondents assaulted A.R. Gawande. None of the witnesses testified to having seen the respondents attacking any police officials during the incident. In fact, it has been confirmed that the A.D.M. ordered gunfire on the agitators. Moreover, the identity of the person who actually assaulted A.R. Gawande has not been proved by any of the witnesses, and no Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) was conducted in this case. It is uncertain who actually caused the injury whether the person was hurt by police firing, by someone in the crowd, or due to the stampede itself. The chaotic conditions make it impossible to identify the exact assailant. 20. In absence of credible and direct evidence linking the respondents to the alleged assault, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, where 10 material contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the respondents. 21. Given the fact that more than 33 years have elapsed since the date of the incident, and taking into consideration the protracted nature of the proceedings, as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court which do not appear to suffer from perversity or manifest illegality, this Court finds no merit in interfering with the acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 22. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep