Goverdhan Lal Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J

1 This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/victim under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.08.2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) passed in Criminal Appeal No.43/2023, acquitted the Respondents No.2 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in short is that on 09-04-2017 at about 8:30 a.m., the accused persons, on the issue of immersion of Jot Jhwara, were abusing the complainant’s family members using obscene and filthy language. At that time, Govardhan Sahu (PW-1), son of the complainant Mansharam, was returning home from the field. The accused persons abused him in obscene language, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with fists and blows. On witnessing the assault, Kewal Sahu (PW-2) and Shubham Sahu intervened to pacify the matter, but the accused persons, acting in concert, abused them in vulgar language, threatened them to kill, and also assaulted them with fists and blows. Based on the complainant’s report, a crime was registered, and during the course of investigation, the statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 294, 506 part-2 and 323 of IPC against the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 23.06.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.520/2017 acquitted the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 of offence punishable under Sections 506 part-2 and 323 of IPC, however convicted them under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days SI. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) and vide judgment dated 03.08.2023, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the victim/appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/victim Goverdhan Sahu (PW-1) submits that the victim (PW-1) and independent witness Kewal Singh (PW-2) have supported the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court. The accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 have used filthy language and obscene words in public against the victim. The learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 of offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 may be convicted and sentenced for the said offence.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused/Respondents No.2 to 5 supported the impugned judgment and submits that the Appellate Court has passed the judgment after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial Court.

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against 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.”

Regarding the offence under Section 294 of the IPC, the prosecution's case relies heavily on the testimonies of two key witnesses: the victim, Goverdhan Sahu (PW-1), and Kewal Singh (PW-2). Their statements reveal a clear rivalry between the complainant and accused parties in the village. The evidence on record shows that both parties reported the incident against each other, and a counter-case was registered.

Goverdhan Sahu (PW-1) testified that the accused persons used filthy language and obscene words against him and his father. However, his statement lacks specificity regarding which accused uttered particular words. Similarly, Kewal Singh (PW-2) stated that the accused used filthy language and obscene words against the victim, but failed to specify which accused used which words. Notably, Kewal Singh (PW-2) admitted in cross-examination that 60-70 people were present during the incident, and both parties assaulted each other, resulting in cross-complaints for assault, abusive language, and threats to life. Thus, the testimony of the eye-witnesses fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt which accused uttered specific obscene words

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in the appeal against acquittal. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and recorded a finding of acquittal. After reassessing the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reason to substitute a contrary finding. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.

Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is dismissed.