2026:CGHC:8710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 563 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Lav Kumar Jaswani S/o Late Shyamsundar Jaswani Aged About 46 Years R/o D-39, Baron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Kush Kumar Jaswani S/o Shyam Sundar Jaswani Aged About 44 Years R/o K-6 Gavda Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant /State : Shri Vinod Tekam, PL For Respondents : Shri Kishan Kumar Yadav, on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.02.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the CrPC, 1973 against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg CG in Sessions Case- 95 of 2016, whereby the respondent/accused person- Lav Kumar Jaswani has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 455/34, and 392/34, in alternate, Section 397/34 of the IPC, whereas respondent/accused person-Kush Kumar Jaswani has been acquitted from the offence under Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.25 11:48:22 +0530 Acqa 563 of 2024 2 Section 455/34, and 392/34, in alternate, Section 397/34 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.02.2016, at about 2.20 pm, the accused persons knocked at the door of the complainant- Priyanka, PW2, as and when she opened the door, accused persons entered into the house, tied the complainant and looted golden and silver ornaments, and her mobile phone. When they heard the noise of a Car in the lane, they fled away from the spot. After some time, her mother, and brother came there, opened the knot, then, she lodged report to the Policen Station-Bhilai Nagar at about 15.15 hours, based on the report, FIR-Ex.P2 was lodged for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC against unknown persons. Spot Map Ex.P3 was prepared by the Police. One sweet box has also been seized from the spot Ex.P1. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and during the investigation, accused persons were arrested on 15.02.2016 by the DD Nagar Police, Raipur Police for offence in Crime No.23 of 2016, and in that case, their memorandum statements were recorded, in which they disclosed about the present offence also, of Crime No.95 of 2016, and investigation in the present case was carried out. Memorandum statements of the accused persons Ex.P11 and P12 were recorded in Crime No.23 of 2016 by the Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur. 4. From accused-Kush Jaswani, his Maruti Car, and vehicle sale agreement have been seized vide seizure Memo Ex.P13; one Mangal Acqa 563 of 2024 3 Sutra, two coins, two gold chains, one pair bracelet, one pair ear rings (Jhumka) and ear studs have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P14; from accused Kush Jaswani, one silver color pistol and six live cartridges have also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P15 in Crime No.23 of 2016 by the DD Nagar Police. From the accused Lav Jaswani, two chains, one pair of ear studs, and one pair Jhumka, one locket, and ten silver coins have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P16. The pistol seized from the accused-Kush Jaswani has been sent to the Armory office, Raipur for its examination. The accused persons were put to test identification parade, which was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, and test identification memo Ex.P4 has been prepared. The ornaments seized from the accused persons were also put to test identification and the said ornaments were also identified by the complainant and identification memo Ex.P5 was prepared. Spot map Ex.P6 was prepared by the patwari. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the JMFC, Durg for the offence under Sections 454, 397 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 5. The case was committed to the learned trial court for its trial. Learned Trial court has framed charge against the accused Kush Jaswani for the offence under Sections 455/34, 392/397/34 IPC and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, whereas charge against the accused Lav Jaswani has been framed under Sections 455/34 and 392/397/34 IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. Acqa 563 of 2024 4 6. In order to prove the charge with the accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial court has acquitted the respondents/ accused persons from the alleged offences holding that the identification of the accused persons could not be established by the prosecution and before the Test Identification parade, they have seen their photographs in the daily new paper and therefore, the identification parade loses its efficacy. It is also held by the learned trial court that the identification of the ornaments allegedly seized from the accused persons was also suffered from irregularity as no proper procedure was drawn during the identification of the ornaments and the identification memo Ex.P5 was prepared in absence of the witnesses and signatures were obtained later on. It is also consideration of the learned trial court that no proper sanction for prosecution was obtained to prosecute the accused person Kush Jaswani for the offence under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act which is required under Section 39 of the Arms Act. The sanction which was obtained by the prosecution was with respect to Crime No.23/2016 registered at Police Station DD Nagar Raipur but not for the offence of Crime No.95 of 2016 registered at Police Station, Bhilai Nagar. Acqa 563 of 2024 5 Therefore, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from all the offences, which is under challenge in this present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor contradictions, evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully reliable which is sufficient to convict the respondents/accused persons for the offence in question. 9. The presence of respondents/accused persons in the house of the victim / complainant has duly been proved by PW2 complainant, her mother PW3 and PW1, her brother. The identification of the accused persons, was conducted by PW12, TR Maheshwari, Tahsildar and the identification of the ornaments was conducted by PW6, Gajapati Nayak, who was the Executive Magistrate. Both of them duly supported the identification parade conducted by them. There is sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the accused persons in the case to convict the respondents/accused persons for the offence in question, yet the learned trial court has acquitted them which requires interference and the impugned judgment of their acquittal may be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused persons supported the judgment and would submit that case of the prosecution is based on the identification parade of the accused persons as well as the ornaments which have not been proved in accordance with law by the prosecution. There are various discrepancies in the procedure Acqa 563 of 2024 6 adopted by the witnesses PW12 TR Maheshwari, Tahsildar and PW6 Gajapati Nayak, Executive Magistrate while conducting the identification parade of the accused persons as well as ornaments . Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is absolutely justified, which needs no interference. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 12. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal, it transpires that the learned trial court has considered identification of the accused persons in para 60 of its judgment, wherein it has been observed by the learned trial court that before conducting the test identification parade of the accused persons, their photographs have already been published in the daily news papers which had been seen by the complainants. One of the reasons to disbelieve the test identification parade of the accused persons is that the same has been conducted after considerable delay. The alleged date of incident is on 09.02.2016, whereas the test identification parade was conducted on 13.04.2016 i.e. after more than two months. Sufficient number of persons having similar physique have not been mixed with the accused persons and therefore, the identification parade conducted by PW12 TR Maheshwari, Tahsildar is not free from any doubt which can be relied upon by the learned trial court for conviction of the accused persons. Likewise, with respect to identification of the ornaments, allegedly seized from the accused persons, learned Acqa 563 of 2024 7 trial court in its judgment in para 37 has considered the evidence of the investigating officer with respect to the safe custody of the ornaments and taking the ornaments for its identification to the Tahsil Office Durg. There are various irregularities which have been occurred in conducting identification of the accused persons as well as ornaments which have been elaborately considered by the learned trial court in its impugned judgment. Further, the accused Kush Jaswani has been acquitted from the offence of Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act holding that there is no valid sanction for the prosecution as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act, and the sanction which has been filed in the present case is with respect to Crime No.23 of 2016 registered at Police Station, DD Nagar, whereas the present offence has been registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar with respect to Crime No.95 of 2016 for which there is no sanction for prosecution. 13. Considering and discussing the evidence in its detail, learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons from all the alleged offences and from perusal of entire evidence of the witnesses as well as documents annexed with the charge-sheet, this court is also of the opinion that the consideration of the learned trial court is one of the plausible view which arises from the evidence produced by the prosecution in the case. Acqa 563 of 2024 8 14. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC On Line SC 984, has held as under: “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.” 15. Yet in another matter of Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in paragraph-25 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. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” Acqa 563 of 2024 9 16. After considering the material available on record, as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the trial Court and being very much conscious about the legal position as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kistoora Ram (supra), and Jafarudheen (supra), in an appeal against the acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, and the trial Court taking one view, revert the accused, the version of the finding of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view for consideration, is not permissible in the law. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the accused respondents, is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 17. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State, against the accused respondents is hereby dismissed. 18. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma