1 2026:CGHC:4023-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No. 46 of 2016 1 – State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Kuakonda, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 – Manoj Singh, S/o Krishnaraj Singh, aged 39 years, suspended Branch Manager, Lampus – Nakulnar, R/o Hudco Colony, Aawarabhata, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.). 2 – Vinod Sori @ Bala, S/o Late Devaram Sori, aged 35 years, R/o village Jaripara, Mokhpal, Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mokhpal, Tahsil Katekalyan, Police Station Kuakonda, District Dantewada (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, Govt. Advocate. For Res. No.1 : None For Res. No.2 : Mr. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. DB : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (23.01.2026) 2 Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant herein against the judgment dated 02.09.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.166/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents herein of the charge under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 436 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prior to 21.05.2014, the accused/respondents being posted as Branch Manager of Lampus and Sarpanch of village Mukhpal, respectively used total sum of Rs.10,96,51,000/- under the scheme of Indira Awas Yojana from Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat in LAMPUS scheme and out of which, on a different dates they embezzled Rs.2,77,4186.38/- and Rs.25 Lakhs by issuing fake and fabricated cheques to the person who were not beneficiary in the scheme and thereby embezzled huge sum of Govt. exchequer and thereafter, set ablaze the LAMPUS office in order to hatch conspiracy and to hide the evidence which resulted destroy of important register and documents. Upon receiving the complaint from 3 salesman of LAMPUS office namely Krishna Singh Chouhan, an FIR was registered on 10.08.2014 being Crime No.11/2014 at Police Station Kuakonda, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) against the present accused/respondents and after usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent Court showing another accused Smt. Anima Singh Bhadoriya to be absconded followed by charge under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 436 and 201 of IPC. The accused/respondents however denied the charge and pleaded for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 35 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. No defence witness has been examined by the accused/respondents in the case. 4. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 436 and 201 of IPC. Hence, this appeal by the State/appellant. 4 5. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/ appellant submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities, is perverse in nature, and is based on improper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has gravely erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW-26 Devendra Dubey, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, who is an independent and material witness. The said witness has categorically deposed regarding the commission of the offence by the accused/respondents and has further stated that the accused persons illegally opened a bank account in the State Bank of India, Branch Nakulnar, whereas as per the prescribed rules, the LAMPUS Manager was authorised to open an account only in the District Cooperative Bank. The witness has also clearly deposed that the accused failed to maintain mandatory accounts, thereby establishing gross financial irregularities. The learned Trial Court has rejected this credible and unimpeached testimony without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons. Learned counsel also stated that the learned Trial Court has further committed a serious error in ignoring the bank statement annexed with the charge-sheet pertaining to Account No. 11703723044, which clearly demonstrates that 5 accused/respondent No.1 did not issue cheques to the rightful beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojna, and instead issued cheques to ineligible persons. This documentary evidence conclusively establishes misappropriation of public funds; however, the same has been completely overlooked by the learned Trial Court. It has been also submitted that the learned Trial Court did not consider that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt through oral and documentary evidence. Despite overwhelming evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has brushed aside the prosecution case and returned findings in a routine and mechanical manner, rendering the impugned judgment legally unsustainable. The learned Trial Court has further erred in placing undue emphasis on minor contradictions and trivial omissions, which neither go to the root of the prosecution case nor affect its credibility, and has wrongly used the same to grant undue benefit to the accused/respondents. It has also overlooked the fact that the accused/respondents are responsible for setting ablaze the office of the LAMPUS, an act committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy with the sole intention of destroying and concealing material evidence. This vital circumstance has not been considered at all, thereby vitiating the findings 6 recorded by the learned Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it was submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities, misreading of evidence, and perversity. The same is therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for accused/respondent No.2 placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam reported in LAWS(SC)-2013-5-67 and Ravishankar Tandon Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in LAWS (SC)-2024-4-31, submits that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has not committed any error of law and no interference is called for by this Court. In the absence of direct, cogent and trustworthy evidence, the learned Trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused. Therefore, the acquittal of accused is legal, justified and deserves to be affirmed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial court framed charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 436 and 201 of IPC and after 7 appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of the said charges on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. The prosecution alleged that the accused/respondents, while posted as Branch Manager of LAMPUS and Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mukhpal respectively, committed embezzlement of Rs.2,77,94,186.38/- and Rs.25 Lakh by issuing fake and fabricated cheques to non-beneficiaries and thereafter set fire to the LAMPUS Office, Nakulnar, to destroy evidence. 10. Alka Chaturvedi (PW-1), Krishna Singh Chouhan (PW-2), Shailendra Kumar Yadav (PW-3), Sitaram Sinha (PW-4), Prem Singh Thakur (PW-5), Bharat Thakur (PW-6), Durgesh Bajpai (PW-7), Kushalram (PW-8), Dhuduram (PW-9), Devanand Nag (PW-10), Sawan Kumar (PW-11), Harsh Kumar Singh (PW-12), Vijay Shrivastav (PW-13), Rajkumar Nag (PW-17), Sonuram nag (PW-18), Maiduram (PW-21), Kamal Singh Nag (PW-22), Baldev Kashyap (PW-23) and Gouri Shankar (PW-24) all these witnesses have only stated that they identified the accused persons and recognize them but all the aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. In their cross- 8 examination, all the witnesses denied suggestions of the prosecution. However, some of the witnesses only admitted their signature but they too denied all proceeding before them. 11. Devendra Kumar Dubey (PW-26), who is the CEO of Janpad Panchayat, had conducted enquiry of fire incident in LAMPUS Office, Nakulnar. This witness has admitted this suggestion of defence that he went to Lampus Office, Nakulnar after 2-3 months of the fire incident and had only seen the iron almirah. He has also admitted that he did not conducted a physical verification personally regarding the completion of work for which the funds were provided, and he himself stated that this is not possible. He has also admitted that he could not go to the beneficiaries of Indira Aawas and question them. 12. A. Ram Mohan Rao (PW-19) is the Branch Manager of Bhartiya State Bank, Nakulnar, District Dantewada. He has exhibited cheques and seizure memo from Ex.P-35 to Ex.P- 45 and admitted this suggestion of defence that pursuant to the memo of office of S.D.O.P. Kirandul, he had given/sent all the details of cheques to them. 13. Upon appreciation of the evidence, it is apparent that none of the material witnesses supported the prosecution case. 9 Though several witnesses identified the accused, but they did not depose regarding any act of embezzlement or conspiracy and were declared hostile. Mere admission of signatures on certain documents, without proof of contents or procedure, does not advance the prosecution case. That apart, PW-26, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, admitted that he visited the LAMPUS Office 2–3 months after the fire incident, conducted no physical verification of works for which funds were released, and did not examine the beneficiaries. Similarly, PW-19, the Branch Manager, only proved formal documents and did not attribute any misappropriation to the accused. Despite examination of 33 witnesses, the prosecution failed to establish how the alleged embezzlement occurred or how the fire incident was took palce. There is no reliable oral or documentary evidence linking the accused with misappropriation of the alleged amounts. 14. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed in para 45 of its judgment that - “This case, in itself, is a distinct and exceptional one, wherein allegations have been levelled that the accused persons misappropriated and manipulated crores of rupees deposited in the names of beneficiaries of Kuakonda and Katekalyan. It is a matter involving large- 10 scale financial irregularities and embezzlement of crores of rupees; however, despite the gravity of such allegations, the investigation has not been conducted with due seriousness.” 15. Although allegations of large-scale financial irregularities were made, the investigation lacked seriousness and failed to prove that how the accused/respondents embezzled huge sum of Rs.2,77,94,186.38 and Rs.25 Lakh. 16. 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 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; 11 (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." 17. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charges under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 436 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondents particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 12 Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.01.27 14:33:34 +0530