Judgment on Board

Heard on admission.

1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Case No.18/2010, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 25(A) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), 1967.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons namely Subhash @ Aayatu, Laxman @ Sudhakar, Ashok Reddy @ Murli and Shridhar Krishnan @ Vishnu (respondents herein), along with other co- accused, were allegedly involved in naxalite activities prior to 03.07.2007 and were in possession of illegal arms/weapons, cartridges and explosive substances. During interrogation, accused Subhash is said to have disclosed his involvement in naxalite activities and also revealed the names of other co-accused persons. On the basis of the above, on 04.04.2010, offence was registered against the accused persons under Crime No.113/2010 in the police station Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and accused/respondents were taken into custody. On the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Subhash (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4), the police allegedly recovered four rifles, three guns, cartridges and other articles from the forest area of Kanaghurra and seized them vide Ex. P-5. Subsequently, further recovery of explosive materials including liquid explosives and arms was allegedly made from the forest area on the basis of another memorandum, seized vide Ex. P-2.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the competent trial Court. The accused/respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial.

4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of all charges leveled against them.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondents herein of charges levelled against them by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly shows that the accused/respondents were involved in naxalite activities and were found in possession of the dangerous weapons and other explosive substances and despite such cogent and clinching evidence, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record.

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. 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 enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on