1 2026:CGHC:1263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.140 of 2017 • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, ...Appellant versus • Santosh Goyal, S/o Tekchand Agrawal, aged about 52 years, R/o Near Agroha Building, Korba, P.S. City Kotwali, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 08 .01.2026 1. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the Appellant/State, arising out of the judgment dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No.24/2009, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent herein of the charge under Sections 420, 294, 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act of 1989’). PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.09 15:58:56 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused-respondent Santosh Goyal had taken Rs.50,000/- from the complainant Shiv Wahne on account of recruitment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – I on July, 2007. When the accused/respondent failed to make any recruitment, the complainant asked to return the money. On 21.01.2009, when the complainant Shiv Wahne and S.R. Toppo came to the house of the accused-respondent and demanded to return the money, the respondent started to abuse and threaten the complainant. On the basis of the above background, the complainant made written complaint on dated 21.01.2009 and on the basis of the said, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the competent trial Court under Sections 420, 294, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) 10 of the Act of 1989. The accused-respondent denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent herein of said charges leveled against him. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused-respondent herein of the above charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused- respondent had taken money from the complainant and abused and 3 threatened him. Despite such cogent and clinching evidence, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused- respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent supports the impugned judgment. He further submits that the complainant has not filed any document with regard to the alleged sale of his ancestral land situated at Balaghat for arranging money for the respondent in lieu of providing the job. He further submits that there is a delay of about 1 ½ years in lodging the FIR and delay in filing the same has not been explained properly. This apart, the statement of the complainant Shiv Wahne (PW-01) is not duly corroborated with the evidence available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial Court, after duly appreciating and evaluating the entire evidence on record, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the accused-respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well-merited and calls for no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking 4 Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms 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 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.” 9. To deal with the contentions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to discuss the evidence available on record. 10. The complainant Shiv Wahne (PW-01) in his Court statement has deposed that in July, 2007, the accused-respondent has demanded Rs.50,000/- from him for providing job as Shiksha Karmi. As he did not have money at that time, he sold his ancestral land situated at village Balaghat and gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused-respondent. He further stated that when the accused-respondent failed to provide the job, then he demanded back his money, on which the accused-respondent did not return him money, rather he threatened him and abused him in filthy language. On dated 21.01.2009, the accused-respondent had made phone call over his brother’s mobile and threatened him. Thereafter, he lodged a written complaint Ex.P-1 dated 21.01.2009 in Police Chowki Rampur, Korba. However, this witness in his cross-examination has admitted that in July, 2007, he sold his land situated at Balaghat and received the money which he deposited it in State Bank, Branch – Malajkhand. He further admitted that he withdrew Rs.15,000 – Rs.15,000/- total Rs.45,000/- from ATM situated at Korba on 20, 21 and 22 July, 2007 and further, arranged Rs.5,000/- and gave total Rs.50,000/- to the accused-respondent on 23 July, 2007. 11. Pramod Kumar Shinde (PW-02), Head Constable has stated in his 5 testimony that he has seized the passbook (Ex.P-04) given by the complainant Shiv Wahne (PW-01) from which it is clear that amount of Rs.15,000 - Rs.15,000/- has not been withdrawn on 20, 21 and 22 July, 2007 as stated by the complainant. Thus, there appears major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Further, statement of the complainant is not duly corroborated with the statement of Pramod Kumar Shinde (PW-02) and other evidence available on record. 12. The complainant has not produced any document regarding alleged sale of his land and giving money to the accused-respondent. Moreover, the FIR has been lodged after a gap of about 1 ½ years of the alleged demand and the delay has not been explained properly. Thus, there appears major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant regarding alleged demand of money and threatening and abusing him in the name of his caste by the accused-respondent. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to show that accused- respondent was involved in providing job to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its duty by adducing cogent and clinching evidence to show the complicity of the accused person in the crime in question. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court, I am of 6 considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused- respondent herein of the said charges is just and proper and do not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused-respondent herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash