1 2025:CGHC:56571-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 01.09.2025 20.11.2025 -- 20.11.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 534 of 2018 Order Reserved on : 01.09.2025 Order Pronounced on : 20.11.2025  State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ----Applicant Versus  Samaru Ram Rathore, S/o Shri Bhikhariram @ Bhurthuram Rathore, aged about 62 years, R/o village Paasid, P.S. – Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For State/Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. For Respondent/accused : Mr. Sumit Singh with Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (C.A.V. Order) By Rajani Dubey, J. 1. The State has preferred the instant revision petition being aggrieved by judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2017 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment dated 11.01.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.846/2014 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) convicting the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused was posted as C.H.M in District Senani Nagar Sena, Janjgir. A complaint was received against the accused/respondent to the effect that the accused/respondent obtained the service on the basis of forged certificate. Thereafter, the matter was inquired by S.P. Goutam and during the course of inquiry, original mark sheet of Class 8, copy of which was attached in the service book, was demanded from the accused/respondent but it was not submitted by the accused/respondent. Thereafter, the photo copy of the mark 3 sheet of 8th class of accused/respondent was got verified, and it came to fore that the said mark sheet was issued by the Govt. Middle School Katnai, Block – Akaltara and the roll number mentioned in the said mark sheet was found to be of some other student and in the said mark sheet after putting paper on the name, date of birth and father’s name, the accused/respondent mentioned his name, father’s name and date of birth and got it photo copied, therefore, an FIR was lodged against the accused/respondent and the matter was taken into investigation. 3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and accordingly the charge was framed against him by the trial Court. 4. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Vide judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The accused/respondent has assailed the said judgment before 4 the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) by way of filing criminal appeal being Cr.A. No.02/2017, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2017 and acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges levelleged against him vide impugned judgment dated 08.12.2017, hence this revision by the State/applicant. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned P.L. for the State/applicant submits that the judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, improper and incorrect and therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and law points. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the accused/respondent failed to submit the original mark sheet of class 8th when the demand was raised which itself reveals his grave misconduct and foul play in obtaining the job for which he was not entitled. The learned Sessions Judge has utterly failed to consider that when the photocopy of class 8th which was attached in the service book of accused/respondent was inquired from the concerned school, the same was found to be of other student namely Onkardhar, son of Hemdhar and the name of accused/respondent was not registered in the concerned school’s record. It has been also 5 submitted that when the original mark sheet of class 8th was demanded from the accused/respondent, he failed to submit the same and in place of class 8th mark sheet, he submitted class 3rd mark sheet, wherein the date of birth of accused/respondent was mentioned as 12.08.1950 whereas the date of birth of accused/respondent was mentioned as 19.02.1959 in class 8th mark sheet which was attached in the service book which further reveals that how the accused/respondent tampered with the mark sheet of class 8th and obtained service on the basis of forged documents and the accused/respondent failed to offer any explanation regarding the same as the burden to prove the same was on the accused/respondent under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel also submits that although the scope of interference in the appeals/revision against acquittal is very limited but it is settled position of law that if the view taken by the learned Trial Court appears to be unjust or perverse, this Hon’ble Court may interfere with the order impugned or appealed against. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that minor discrepancies or improvement do not necessarily demolish a testimony of reliable witness. Thus, for the foregoing grounds and submissions, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and the conclusion arrived at is improper, unjust, bad- 6 in-law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for accused/respondent submits that the learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly set aside the judgment of learned Magistrate and acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. The order impugned is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. Reliance has bee placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481, Baljinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 2 SCC 629, Govindaraju alias Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722, C.Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 487 and Noorul Huda Maqbook Ahmed Vs. Ram Deo Tyagi & Ors. reported in (2011) 7 SCC 95. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of both the Courts that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 420, 7 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the accused/respondent and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The accused/respondent filed appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of learned and the learned Appellate Court by the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2017, allowed the appeal of the accused/respondent and acquitted him from all the charges. Hence, this revision against the acquittal was filed by the State. 10. The learned Appellate Court recorded its finding in para 17 of its judgment dated 08.122017 that the learned Trial Court has itself observed in para 25 and 26 of its judgment dated 11.01.2017 that the mark sheet of accused/respondent of class 8th annexed in the service book is forged, however, there is no evidence on record to show that the said forgery has been committed by the accused/respondent and the accused/respondent is silent in this regard. The learned Appellate also recorded its finding in para 19 that the learned Trial Court presumed on the basis of silence of the accused/respondent that the accused/respondent had forged and submitted his class 8th mark sheet at the time of his appointment, which makes it clear that the learned Trial Court recorded its finding in para 25 and 26 contrary to the 8 settled principles of criminal law. The learned Appellate Court after minutely appreciating all oral and documentary evidence and the finding of learned Trial Court, allowed the appeal of the accused/respondent. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raja Naykar (surpa) held in para 18 as under :- “18. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no mater how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of 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 9 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; (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." 13. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition of Raja Naykar and Mallappa (supra) in the present case as well and looking to the statement of witnesses and finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality 10 coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal revisions preferred by the State is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.11.20 16:40:10 +0530