Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwari Bai Atrame vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11623-DB
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 68 of 2020
1 - Jageshwari Bai Atrame W/o Late Radheylal Atrame Aged About
33 Years R/o Village Rangakathera, Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Appellant : None. Ms. Nirupama Bajpai,
Advocate through Legal Aid.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava,
Deputy Advocate General.
ACQA No. 104 of 2021
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
Versus
2
1 - Ramadhar Purame S/o Late Milor Singh, aged about 45 Years,
Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
2- Suraj Kumar Purame, S/o Budhu Ram Purame, aged about 20
years, Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon,
District Rajnandgaon, C.G.
3- Kushal Usare, S/o Mansukh Usare, aged about 21 years,
Resident of village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon, District
Rajnandgaon, C.G.
4- Chandan Singh Patel, S/o Late Biklu Patel, aged about 30
years, Resident of Village Thakurtola, Police Station Khadgaon,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
(Cause-title Taken From Caste Information System)
For Appellant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy
Advocate General.
For Respondents : None.
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Judgment on Board
11.03.2026
Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of the
common judgment dated 24.12.2019 passed by the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial
3
No.17/2019, they are being heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2020 has been preferred by the
appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 calling in question the
legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.12.2019, whereby she has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302 of Indian Imprisonment for life with a
Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC‘) fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine amount to
undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for three
months
Under Section 201 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for
three years and fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine amount to
undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for three
months
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
3. Acquittal Appeal No.104 of 2021 has been filed by the
State against the same judgment whereby respondents,
namely, Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal
Usare and Chandan Singh Patel have been acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC.
4. Since no one appeared on behalf of the accused/appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020, Ms. Nirupama Bajpai,
4
learned counsel on the panel of the High Court Legal
Services Committee, was requested to assist the Court and
argue the matter on behalf of the appellant. She kindly
consented and advanced arguments on behalf of the
appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame.
5. The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to
issue a formal order of appointment in her favour, and she
shall be entitled to the prescribed fee in accordance with the
rules.
6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased- Chavlesh
Churendra was residing in village Rengakathera under Police
Station Mohla, District Rajnandgaon. It is alleged that the
deceased was having a love affair with the present appellant-
Jageshwari Bai Atrame. According to the prosecution, the
villagers were aware of the said relationship and a meeting
was convened in the village wherein both of them were
advised to stay separately and not to continue their
relationship. On 17.11.2018, Kamta Prasad (PW-7) along
with village Kotwarin Malti Devi (PW-6) and others went to
Police Station Mohla and informed that the dead body of
deceased- Chavlesh Churendra was lying inside the house of
appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame. On the basis of the said
information, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-15,
5
inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and the
dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem
examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted
by Dr. Devesh Thakur (PW-20), who opined that the cause of
death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the death of
deceased was homicidal in nature. On the basis of the post-
mortem report (Ex.P-43), FIR (Ex.P-32) was registered for
the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, it
was alleged that on interrogation, the appellant- Jageshwari
Bai Atrame disclosed that on the night of 16.11.2018, she
and the deceased had gone to the house of her relative
acquitted co-accused- Ramadhar Purame at village
Khadgaon. According to the prosecution, the deceased
attempted to establish physical relations with her, which
resulted in a quarrel and in the heat of the moment, she
strangulated the deceased with her hands. It was further
alleged that after the death of the deceased, the other
acquitted co-accused persons assisted in transporting the
dead body to the house of the appellant and attempted to
conceal the evidence.
7. During the course of investigation, memorandum statement
of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-4 and certain articles
belonging to the deceased such as spectacles, cap, cloth
6
and mobile phone were allegedly seized from her possession
vide Exs.P-5 & P-6. The motorcycle of the deceased bearing
registration number CG-08-AF-7899 and a pair of slippers
were also seized from near the house of the appellant vide
Ex.P-16.
8. After due investigation, accused persons were charge-
sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case
was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in
accordance with law, in which accused persons abjured their
guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not
committed the aforesaid offences.
9. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence,
examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case and
exhibited 43 documents (Exs.P-1 to P-43). However, the
accused persons in support of their defence have examined
none, but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1.
10. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties
and appreciating the evidence available on record, by the
impugned judgment acquitted the co-accused persons, namely
Ramadhar Purame, Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and
Chandan Singh Patel, of the charges under Sections 302/34
and 201 of the IPC. However, it convicted and sentenced the
accused, Jageshwari Bai Atrame, for the offences mentioned
7
in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, separate appeals have been filed, one by the
accused- Jageshwari Bai Atrame, challenging her conviction
and sentence, and the other by the State against the acquittal
of the aforesaid co-accused persons.
11. Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020 – Ms. Nirupama Bajpai,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial
evidence and none of the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He
further submits that merely because the dead body of the
deceased was found in a house allegedly belonging to the
appellant, she has been implicated in the present case. It is
also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that
the said house actually belonged to the appellant. From the
evidence of PW-1 Hulesh Kumar, it appears that the house
belonged to Soma Bai, the mother of the appellant. It is further
pointed out that Soma Bai, who had first informed about the
incident, has not been examined by the prosecution. He
further contends that most of the prosecution witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile. The memorandum and seizure witnesses
have also not supported the prosecution case. He also
8
submits that the alleged motive of a love affair has not been
proved by the prosecution. Thus, it is prayed that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court
convicting and sentencing the appellant be set aside and she
be acquitted of the charges levelled against her.
12. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned State counsel, on the
other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that
the dead body of the deceased was found in the house where
the appellant was present, and the medical evidence clearly
establishes that the death of the deceased was caused by
strangulation. It is further submitted that the appellant has
failed to explain the circumstances under which the deceased
died. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting and
sentencing her, which calls for no interference by this Court.
13. Acquittal Appeal No.104 of 2021- Learned counsel for the
State submits that the learned trial Court has erred in
acquitting the respondents, namely Ramadhar Purame, Suraj
Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh Patel,
without properly appreciating the evidence available on record.
It is argued that the evidence on record clearly establishes that
the death of the deceased occurred in the house of
respondent Ramadhar Purame and thereafter the dead body
was transported with the help of the other accused persons. It
9
is further argued that Tarun Kumar Choudhary (PW-8) has
clearly stated that when he went to the house of Ramadhar
Purame, the deceased was lying there and the other accused
persons were present. It is therefore submitted that the trial
Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the
said accused persons. He further submits that the seizure of
the vehicle allegedly used for transporting the dead body and
the circumstances brought on record during the course of
investigation clearly establish the involvement of the other
accused persons in the offence. It is therefore contended that
the acquittal recorded by the trial Court deserves to be set
aside and the respondents be convicted accordingly.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their rival submissions made herein-above and
also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
15. The first question for consideration is whether the death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature. The trial Court has
answered this question in the affirmative, relying upon the
postmortem report (Ex. P-43) proved by PW-20 Dr. Devesh
Thakur. The said finding is a finding of fact based on the
evidence available on record, and it is neither perverse nor
contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, we affirm the
said finding.
10
16. The question that now arises for consideration is whether
the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is the perpetrator of the
crime in question.
17. Admittedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence
as there is no direct evidence available on record. The five
golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a
case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down
by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein it was
observed in paragraph 153 as under:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and
not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be
proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was
held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra2 where the following
observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 :
SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
2 (1973) 2 SCC 793
11be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and
‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from
sure conclusions.
(2)the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5)there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
18. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the evidence available
on record is required to be examined.
19. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are: (i) the
alleged love affair between the deceased and the appellant; (ii)
the alleged telephonic conversation between them; (iii) the
presence of the deceased and the appellant at the house of co-
accused Ramadhar Purame; (iv) the alleged last seen
12
circumstance; (v) the memorandum statement and recovery of
certain articles; and (vi) the recovery of the motorcycle and
slippers of the deceased from near the house of the appellant.
We shall examine these circumstances one by one.
20. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
alleged love affair between the deceased and the appellant. In
order to establish this circumstance, the prosecution examined
Hulesh Kumar (PW-1), Yogeshwar (PW-2), Bisal Singh (PW-3),
Chummin Bai (PW-5) and Malti Devi (PW-6). These witnesses
have stated that there had been discussions in the village
regarding the relationship between the deceased and the
appellant and that a meeting had also been convened in the
village. However, none of the witnesses have stated that they had
direct personal knowledge of such relationship. Their statements
are only based on what they had heard from others in the village.
Even the wife of the deceased, Chummin Bai (PW-5), has not
made any categorical statement that the deceased was having a
love affair with the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame. Therefore,
the alleged motive suggested by the prosecution cannot be said
to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
alleged telephonic conversation between the deceased and the
appellant. For this purpose, the prosecution relied upon the call
13
detail records produced by Sanjeev Nema (PW-14). However,
from the evidence on record, it appears that one of the mobile
numbers allegedly used by the deceased was registered in the
name of another person namely Poleshwar. There is no evidence
to establish that the said mobile phone was actually being used
by the deceased. Therefore, the call detail records do not
conclusively establish that there was telephonic conversation
between the deceased and the appellant on the relevant date.
22. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the
deceased and the appellant were present in the house of
acquitted co-accused- Ramadhar Purame at village Khadgaon. In
this regard, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of
Tarun Kumar Choudhary (PW-8). This witness has stated that he
was called to the house of co-accused- Ramadhar Purame as
someone had become unconscious. When he reached there, he
examined the person and found that he had already died. He
further stated that the appellant and some other persons were
present there. However, the testimony of this witness does not
establish that the appellant and the deceased were last seen
together immediately before the occurrence. His statement only
shows that when he reached the house of co-accused-
Ramadhar Purame, the deceased was already lying dead.
14
Therefore, the circumstance of last seen together cannot be said
to have been proved.
23. In the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 3, the
Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen
together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where
there was no possibility of any other person meeting or
approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before
the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was
observed in paragraph 34 as under :-
“34. From the principle laid down by this
Court, the circumstance of last-seen together
would normally be taken into consideration
for finding the accused guilty of the offence
charged with when it is established by the
prosecution that the time gap between the
point of time when the accused and the
deceased were found together alive and
when the deceased was found dead is so
small that possibility of any other person
being with the deceased could completely be
ruled out. The time gap between the
accused persons seen in the company of the
deceased and the detection of the crime
would be a material consideration for
appreciation of the evidence and placing
reliance on it as a circumstance against the3 (2007) 3 SCC 755
15accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said
that the evidence of last seen together is to
be rejected merely because the time gap
between the accused persons and the
deceased last seen together and the crime
coming to light is after a considerable long
duration. There can be no fixed or straight
jacket formula for the duration of time gap in
this regard and it would depend upon the
evidence led by the prosecution to remove
the possibility of any other person meeting
the deceased in the intervening period, that is
to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such
an evidence that likelihood of any person
other than the accused, being the author the
crime, becomes impossible, then the
evidence of circumstance of last seen
together, although there is long duration of
time, can be considered as one of the
circumstances in the chain of circumstances
to prove the guilt against such accused
persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves
that in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case, there was no
possibility of any other person meeting or
approaching the deceased at the place of
incident or before the commission of the
crime, in the intervening period, the proof of
last seen together would be relevant
evidence. For instance, if it can be
demonstrated by showing that the accused
16persons were in exclusive possession of the
place where the incident occurred or where
they were last seen together with the
deceased, and there was no possibility of any
intrusion to that place by any third party, then
a relatively wider time gap would not affect
the prosecution case. “
24. The prosecution has also relied upon the memorandum
statement of the appellant and the alleged recovery of certain
articles belonging to the deceased such as spectacles, cap, cloth
and mobile phone from her possession. In this regard the
prosecution examined seizure witnesses including Bisal Singh
(PW-3) and Dilar Singh (PW-10). However, both these witnesses
did not fully support the prosecution case and were declared
hostile. Though they admitted their signatures on the seizure
memo, but they stated that they had signed the documents on
the asking of the police and did not know about the actual
seizure. Therefore, the evidence relating to recovery is also not of
such a nature which can conclusively establish the guilt of the
appellant.
25. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery of the
motorcycle of the deceased and his slippers from near the house
of the appellant. However, the mere presence of the motorcycle
and slippers near the house of the appellant is not sufficient to
prove that she had committed the murder of the deceased.
17
26. Another important aspect which requires consideration is that
the prosecution has not examined Soma Bai, who is stated to be
the mother of the appellant and the person who first informed
others about the presence of the dead body. She was a material
witness who could have thrown light on the circumstances in
which the dead body was found. The failure of the prosecution to
examine this important witness creates a serious doubt about the
prosecution case. It is also noteworthy that several prosecution
witnesses including seizure witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The evidence
of the remaining witnesses does not establish the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution in a clear and convincing manner.
27. Upon careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, it is
evident that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do
not form a complete chain pointing conclusively towards the guilt
of the appellant. At best, the evidence may raise a suspicion
against the appellant. However, it is a settled principle of
criminal law that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot
substitute for proof. In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that suspicion,
however strong, cannot substitute proof in a criminal trial. The
4 1996 (10) SCC 193
18
entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial
evidence, and the chain of circumstances necessary to bring
home the guilt of the accused has not been established.
28. In the matter of Kali Ram vs State of H.P. 5, the Supreme
Court has held in para 25 which reads as under:-
“25.Another golden thread which runs
through the web of the administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favorable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases where the guilt of
the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence.”
29. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the five golden
principles constituting the “panchsheel” for proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence, as enunciated by the Supreme Court
in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). Therefore, the conviction
of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be
sustained and, consequently, the impugned judgment convicting
and sentencing the appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame, is hereby
5 (1973) 2 SCC 808
19
set aside and she is acquitted of the charges levelled against her
on the basis of benefit of doubt.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.60/2020 filed by the
appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is allowed.
31. Now coming to Acquittal Appeal No. 104 of 2021 filed by
the State against the respondents, namely Ramadhar Purame,
Suraj Kumar Purame, Kushal Usare and Chandan Singh
Patel, it is to be noted that the learned trial Court has acquitted
them on the ground that there is no reliable evidence available
on record to establish their involvement in the commission of
the offence.
32. The prosecution case against these respondents was that
they assisted in transporting the dead body of the deceased
from village Khadgaon to village Rengakathera. However, the
prosecution has failed to adduce any direct or reliable
evidence in support of this allegation. The only witness relied
upon by the prosecution in this regard is Tarun Kumar
Choudhary (PW-8), who has merely stated that when he went
to the house of respondent No.1, Ramadhar Purame, the
deceased was lying there and the other accused persons were
present. However, his testimony does not indicate that the said
respondents had participated in the commission of the offence
or had assisted in transporting the dead body of the deceased.
20
Similarly, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the
vehicle allegedly seized during the course of investigation was
actually used for transporting the dead body. The seizure
witnesses relating to the said vehicle have not supported the
prosecution case in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of
cogent and reliable evidence connecting the respondents with
the alleged act, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court
acquitting them cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to
the evidence available on record.
33. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the
appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the findings
recorded by the trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by the
trial Court are perverse, unreasonable or contrary to the
evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
order of acquittal.
34. The Supreme Court in the matter of Constable Surendra
Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 6, whereby in
Para-11 & 12, it has been held that the High Court should
interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from
perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence
etc. and observed as under:
“11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda
6 2025 INSC 114
21Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka,
(2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to
which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.)
had an occasion to consider the legal position
with regard to the scope of interference in an
appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate
the principles laid down by this Court
governing the scope of interference by the
High Court in an appeal filed by the State
for challenging acquittal of the accused
recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31]
encapsulated the legal position covering
the field after considering various earlier
judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.
482-83, para 29) 6 (2024) 8 SCC 149
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments,
this Court culled out the following general
principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal in the following
words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para
42
42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
22principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition
on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
“substantial and compelling reasons”,
“good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted
conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies
are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance
of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
23there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.’ ”
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of
Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka,
(2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748], this
Court summarised the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing
with an appeal against acquittal under Section
378CrPC as follows :(SCC p. 584, para 8)
“8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused
further strengthens the presumption of
innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
24
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding
an appeal against acquittal, after
reappreciating the evidence, is required
to consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which could
have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view,
the appellate court cannot overturn the
order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence
on record was that the guilt of the
accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that
the scope of interference by an appellate
court for reversing the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court in favour of the
accused has to be exercised within the four
corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
25evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are
possible and only the view consistent with
the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record.”
12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal
position that the interference with the finding of
acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be
warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same
is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.”
35. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated
12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in
Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka (2024) 3 SCC
544 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:-
26
(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;
(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.”
36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
27
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constable
Surendra Singh & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the
learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view.
In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity in the
findings recorded by the trial Court, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting the
respondents herein.
37. Accordingly, the Acquittal Appeal No.104/2021 filed by the
State against the accused persons/respondents is hereby
dismissed.
38. In the result:-
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2020 filed by the accused-
Jageshwari Bai Atrame, is allowed.
(ii) Acquittal Appeal No. 104 of 2021 filed by the State is
dismissed.
39. The appellant- Jageshwari Bai Atrame is reported to be on
bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in
terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial
Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six
months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of
28
Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for
grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice
thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
40. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along
with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for
information and necessary compliance. Registry is further
directed to transmit copy of this judgment to the High Court
Leal Services Committee for necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Vishakha