1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 23 of 2026 1 - Sharad Mishra S/o Shivram Mishra, Aged About 45 Years R/o Kirandul, Police Station Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh 2 - Kaushal Kishore Dubey, S/o R. K. Dubey, Aged About 65 Years R/o Block Colony Dantewada, Police Station Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh 3 - Bahal Ram Netam, S/o Late Rajman Singh, Aged About 59 Years R/o Katiyar Raas, Police Station Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For State : Shri Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 06.02. 202 6 1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(4)/proviso to Section 372 CrPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada in Criminal Appeal No.12/2008 whereby the acquittal appeal filed by the State has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents No.1&2 were accused persons in the offence of Crime No.1/2011 registered at Police Station, INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.04 13:34:11 +0530 2 Dantewada, for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Charge sheet was filed against them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada (in short, CJM) for the offence under Sections 420,406,177 and 120-B IPC. It was alleged against the accused persons that the father of the present appellant namely Shivram Mishra was employed at NMDC Bailadil. He retired in the year 1994. The accused Kaushal Kishore Dubey was an agreement with him to purchase his 5 Acres of land for total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 1991. In between, the complainant Shivram Mishra was in need of money for marriage of his daughter and as such he had taken the entire amount of one Lakh in various installments and executed an agreement on 31.03.1991. Instead of getting the sale deed registered, the accused Kaushal Kishore Dubey got a Power of Attorney executed in his name by alluring him that he would be liable to spend more amount in registration and therefore a power of attorney is to be executed in his favour. Under his assurance, Shivram Mishra executed a power of attorney on 14.11.1995 and after his retirement he went back to Odisha to his native place. In the year, 2000 when he came back to Dantewada, he came to know that his entire land was sold to various persons by the accused. The accused No.2-B.R. Netam, being Patwari, in collusion with Kaushal Kishore sold his entire land. Then the complainant Shivram Mishra lodged a report against the accused persons on which the FIR was registered and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against them. 3. During the proceeding, the accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses 3 and statement of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 CrPC and after conclusion of trial the trial court has acquitted the accused persons from the alleged offences holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no charge against the accused Kaushal Kishore Dubey for the offence under Section 177 IPC and he cannot be convicted without there being any charge. Further, merely on the basis of non correction of revenue records, the accused No.2 who is a Patwari, cannot be held guilty for the subject transaction and both the accused persons have been acquitted. 4. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was challenged by the State before the First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, by filing their acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC. The said acquittal appeal was also dismissed by the appellate court. There was no acquittal appeal filed by the present appellant/ complainant challenging the judgment dated 01.10.2008 passed by the trial court. 5. The complainant/appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada in Criminal Appeal No.12/2008. Initially the present appellant had challenged the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2016 by filing Criminal Revision No.424 of 2017 which was admitted by the coordinate Bench of this court on 30.10.2017 and notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.09.2023 the application filed by the appellant under Section 401 (5) read with Section 482 CrPC was allowed by the coordinate Bench and 4 in view of the provisions of Section 372 CrPC, the Criminal Revision No.424 of 2017 was ordered to be converted into acquittal appeal and thus present acquittal appeal came into existence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons that they committed the offence. The respondents accused Kaushal Kishore Dubey fraudulently obtained Power of Attorney from the father of appellant namely Shivram Mishra and sold his entire land to various persons and have not paid sale consideration to him. They got the power of attorney executed in their favour and by taking advantage of said power of attorney the sale deeds were executed which were not in knowledge of his father. He would also submit that documentary evidence of sale deeds as well as revenue records clearly demonstrate that the accused persons in collusion with each other sold the property of his father. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not make their evidence inadmissible, however, there is substantive evidence that accused persons have committed the offence. The trial court has found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 177 IPC, however, in absence of any charge, he has not been convicted though the trial court has ample power to frame charge against the accused persons as provided under Section 216 of CrPC. Alienating the land of the father of the appellant on the basis of power of attorney and grabbing his entire property itself is an offence of cheating, yet they have been acquitted by erroneous consideration of the evidence. He would also submit that Civil Suit No.19-A/2014 filed by the appellant before the 5 Additional District Judge, Dantewada challenging the sale deeds executed by the accused persons in favour of various purchasers have been decided on 02.01.2018 and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein has been decreed and the sale deed dated 12.08.1999 has been declared null and void, which also supports the allegation against the accused persons. Therefore, the acquittal appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the counsel for the State would submit that after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court as well as appellate court has passed its judgment of acquittal which needs no interference. 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court as well as appellate court and also perused the record of present acquittal appeal. 9. Present is an acquittal appeal filed by the appellant under the proviso of Section 372 CrPC. The Proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives right to the victim to file the appeal against acquittal passed by the court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Section 374 CrPC provides the appeal from conviction and Sub- Section (3) of Section 374 CrPC provides that any person convicted on a trial held by the Magistrate of First Class, may appeal to the court of Session and Sub-Section(2) of Section 374 CrPC provides any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge on a trial held by it in which sentence of imprisonment for more 6 than 7 years has been passed against him, may appeal to the High Court. 10. In the present case, the trial was held before the CJM Dantewada who acquitted the respondents from the alleged offences vide its judgment dated 01.10.2008. Under the provisions of Section 374(3) CrPC, against the order of conviction passed by the CJM or Judicial Magistrate First Class, ordinarily the accused may appeal to the court of Sessions. Likewise, against the order of acquittal passed by CJM or JMFC, the victim have right to file an appeal before the court of Sessions and it is only when the judgment of acquittal or conviction has been passed by the court of Session or Additional Sessions Judge, the victim has a right to file an appeal against the order of conviction or acquittal, as the case may be, before the High Court. 11. In the present case the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the CJM and the appeal against acquittal is lie before the court of Sessions which had already been filed by the State and decided by the First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada vide its judgment dated 15.12.2016. It is not a case here that judgment of acquittal has been passed by the Sessions Judge, but the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the CJM Dantewada has been dismissed. There is no provision in CrPC to file second appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. In the present case the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada which amounts to file a second appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, which, apparently is not 7 maintainable in view of provisions under CrPC. Though initially the appellant has rightly challenged the order dated 15.12.2016 by filing Criminal Revision, but on his own application, he got his revision converted into acquittal appeal vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this court and made his prayer not maintainable. 12. Even otherwise, apart from the issue of maintainability, when this court examines the evidence available on record, after gone through the evidence of PW-12 Shivram Mishra/complainant, it is found that he admits document Ex.D/9 which was with respect to sale of his 12.14 Acres of land in favour of accused and stated that the land was sold for a total consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-. He also admits execution of power of attorney in favour of accused Kaushal Kishore Dubey. The sale deed was proved by Tehsildar G.R. Kulhada, PW-2, who stated that vide sale deed dated 12.08.1999 the purchaser Smt. Bimla Chouhan purchased 2.24 Hect. and 0.49 Hect. land, Ramkumar Chouhan purchased 2 Hect. of land and the copy of power of attorney was available with the said registered deed. He also proved its due registration with the office of Registrar. 13. PW-11, S.S. Potti, the Deputy Collector, has passed the order dated 27.07.2000 with respect to diversion of the land of Khasra No.146/02 area 0.24 Hect. in favour of Smt. Bimla Chouhana and proved the diversion order Ex.P/29. 14. PW-15, T. Bhagwati Rao and PW-16 S.K. Sen are the employees of State Bank of India. They issued bank account statement of the complainant Ex.P/39 & P/40. However, prosecution could not establish any incriminating circumstances with the said bank account statement. 8 15. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, there is no infirmity in the process of registration of sale deeds, however, it is the case of the appellant that accused persons got the power of attorney registered from Shivram Mishra and sold the entire land and have not paid any amount to them. The land was duly registered under the authority of power of attorney and sale deed was executed during existence of power of attorney executed by Shivram Mishra in favour of accused Kaushal Kishore. 16. From the evidence of PW-10, D.D. Pandey, it also reflects that out of total sale consideration, Shivram Mishra had already obtained Rs.91,000/- from the accused in the year 1991 itself and executed an agreement Ex.D/2. He came to Dantewada for registration of deeds but non availability of requisite stamp papers the deed could not be registered which was supported by other witnesses PW-2, PW-9 and PW-12. Since Shivram Mishra,PW-12 was not in a position to stay at Dantewada for 3-4 days, he executed a power of attorney in favour of Kaushal Kishore and then Kaushal Kishore executed the sale deeds of total 12.34 Acres of his land for total consideration on 1,35,000/- in favour of three different persons. Since the agreement was executed for Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently the value of the land was increased and they would be getting Rs.1,35,000/-, keeping interest of complainant Shivram Mishra, he informed it to him and keeping aside his own interest, executed three sale deeds in favour of different persons so that the complainant may get higher value of his land and thereby there is no offence of cheating by the accused persons. 9 17. From perusal of evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court as well as appellate court, this court is of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and it does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 18. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan Vs. 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 interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, 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 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 analysed. 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 10 accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such as double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 20. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder