The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that appellate courts must not lightly overturn acquittals, particularly where the trial court has conducted a meticulous appreciation of evidence. This judgment underscores the necessity of judicial restraint in criminal appeals and the high threshold required to disturb findings of fact made by trial courts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
On 27 July 2015, Nitin Kumar Limbom alias Mukku was shot three times at Funwara Chowk, Rajnandgaon, while returning from a gym. He alleged that Sonu Bahadur @ Sonu Thapa fired the shots from a pistol while seated on a motorcycle, accompanied by another individual. The prosecution alleged a broader conspiracy involving six other accused persons who were present at the scene or facilitated the attack.
Procedural History
- 2015: F.I.R. registered under Sections 307/34, 120-B, 212 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
- 2018: Trial Court acquitted six accused (Abhishek Chouhan, Jugal Kishore, Ghanshyam Vishwakarma, Lavkesh Patel, Ronit Meshram) of all charges, but convicted Sonu Bahadur @ Sonu Thapa under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
- 2018: Three appeals filed - two by the complainant and State challenging acquittals, one by Sonu challenging conviction and sentence.
- 2026: High Court heard appeals together and delivered a common judgment.
Relief Sought
The complainant and State sought reversal of acquittals and conviction of all accused. Sonu sought reduction of sentence, citing prolonged incarceration and no misuse of bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could set aside acquittals of co-accused in a conspiracy and attempted murder case merely because a contrary view of the evidence was possible, or whether it was bound to uphold the trial court’s reasoned appreciation unless perversity or illegality was established.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The complainant and State contended that the trial court erred in ignoring the testimonies of PW-1 (Dinesh Maheshwari) and PW-3 (Ravi Sahu), who allegedly implicated the acquitted accused in the conspiracy. They argued that the presence of multiple accused at the scene, the shared motive, and the coordinated escape on motorcycles established a common intention under Section 34 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. They further asserted that the ballistic and medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s version and that acquittal was perverse.
For the Respondent/State
The State, while supporting the conviction of Sonu, defended the acquittals of others, acknowledging the trial court’s careful scrutiny. The defense for the acquitted accused emphasized contradictions in witness statements, lack of direct evidence linking them to the firearm, and absence of any recovery or forensic link to the co-accused. They relied on the principle that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous review of the trial court’s reasoning and applied the settled jurisprudence from Mallappa v. State of Karnataka. It emphasized that appreciation of evidence is the core of a criminal trial, and partial or selective evaluation constitutes a ground for reversal only if it leads to perversity.
"If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed."
The Court noted that while PW-1 and PW-3 identified Sonu as the shooter, neither explicitly linked the other accused to the act of firing or to any prior planning. The prosecution failed to establish any communication, coordination, or shared intent among the acquitted accused. The fact that they were present at the scene or fled on a motorcycle driven by Jugal did not, by itself, prove conspiracy.
The Court further held that the trial court’s decision to acquit the co-accused was not only plausible but legally sound. The absence of recovered weapons, no forensic evidence tying the others to the crime, and inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding their roles rendered the prosecution’s case against them speculative.
Regarding Sonu’s conviction, the Court found no error. The injured’s testimony was consistent with medical reports, the seized pistol, and ballistic evidence. The trial court’s reliance on direct eyewitness accounts and corroborative forensic data met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The State and complainant’s appeals against acquittal were dismissed. Sonu’s conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was upheld, but his substantive jail sentence under Section 307 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine and default sentence remained intact. Sonu was directed to furnish a personal bond with surety under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned on Mere Possibility
- Practitioners must argue that appellate courts cannot substitute their own view for that of the trial court unless the latter’s reasoning is legally unsustainable.
- A finding of acquittal based on conflicting testimony or lack of corroboration cannot be disturbed merely because the appellate court believes another outcome is possible.
Conspiracy Requires More Than Proximity
- Mere presence at the scene, association with the main accused, or fleeing together does not establish common intention or conspiracy under Section 34 IPC or Section 120-B IPC.
- Prosecution must adduce direct or circumstantial evidence of prior concert, communication, or shared design - absent which acquittal must stand.
Sentence Reduction for Prolonged Litigation Is Judicially Recognized
- Courts may reduce sentences where accused have endured excessive pre-conviction incarceration, especially when no bail violation occurred.
- Delay in trial, even if not attributable to the accused, may be a mitigating factor under Article 21 when assessing proportionality of punishment.
