Affirming existing Supreme Court precedents, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that acquittal verdicts stand if two reasonable views exist – binding on criminal appeals under Section 374(4), persuasive elsewhere
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/168/2019 of SHAKUNTALA GOND Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010061742019 |
| Date of Registration | 18-02-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appellate court may set aside an acquittal when the trial court’s view is a possible one, absent patent perversity or omission of material evidence? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that an acquittal should not be interfered with simply because the appellate view is more probable; interference is warranted only where the trial court’s finding is perverse, ignores admissible evidence, or misreads material evidence. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by acquittal, and if two reasonable views exist, the one favorable to the accused must prevail. In appeals under Section 374(4) CrPC, the court must ensure no miscarriage of justice, intervening only for compelling and substantial reasons. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Sarpanch lodged an FIR alleging caste-based abuse and assault during a Panchayat meeting over a disputed, allegedly forged receipt. The trial court found contradictions and factional enmity, and acquitted the Upsarpanch and Panch for lack of credible support. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that appellate interference under Section 374(4) CrPC requires patent perversity or misreading/omission of material evidence, not merely a more probable view.
- Underscores the principle that if two reasonable views exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.
- Clarifies that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal and demands compelling reasons for reversal.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to resist appeals seeking to overturn acquittals based on alternative interpretations of evidence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examined trial-court findings and noted factional enmity and contradictions in the complainant’s versions.
- Applied Budh Singh v. State of U.P.: High Court should not disturb an acquittal when two views are possible unless the acquittal is perverse or ignores admissible evidence.
- Relied on V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala: presumption of innocence and the “golden thread” favoring the accused in criminal cases.
- Cited Constable 907 Surendra Singh & anr.: interference is warranted only on patent perversity or misreading/omission of material evidence.
- Concluded that the trial-court’s view was a possible one and no compelling reason existed for interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Complainant)
- Respondents abused her with filthy and caste-based slurs during the Panchayat meeting.
- Witnesses Gorelal Sahu (PW-5) and Motilal Sahu (PW-7) supported her version.
Respondents (Accused)
- Claimed false implication due to political rivalry and enmity arising from a previous complaint to Collector/SDO.
- Denied provoking Rajat Kumar’s assault; stated allegations were baseless.
Respondent/State
Did not file an appeal.
Factual Background
The appellant, serving as Sarpanch, questioned a Panchayat operator’s forged receipt during a village meeting. A dispute escalated into alleged caste-based abuse and assault, prompting her to lodge an FIR under Sections 294 & 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial court acquitted two accused due to contradictions and lack of independent support, leading to this appeal under Section 374(4) CrPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 374(4) CrPC confers inherent power on High Courts to review acquittals but imposes a high threshold: interference only for patent perversity or misreading/omission of material evidence.
- Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act criminalizes insults or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste/Tribe.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court principles on interference in acquittal appeals have been affirmed.
Citations
- 2025 CGHC 44535 (NAFR)
- Budh Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731
- V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, (2006) 10 SCC 617
- Constable 907 Surendra Singh & anr. v. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114