Facts
The appellant, complainant/victim Bajrang Singh, preferred an acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 29 May 2017 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Trial No. 619/2013.
Source reference: para. 1By that judgment, Respondents 2 to 5 were acquitted of charges under Sections 294 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Source reference: para. 1The State had independently challenged the same acquittal judgment in Acquittal Appeal No. ACQA/35/2018, State of Chhattisgarh v. Manish Tiwari & Others.
Source reference: para. 3A coordinate Division Bench dismissed that appeal by a reasoned judgment dated 1 August 2025, thereby affirming the trial court’s acquittal.
Source reference: para. 5Neither the State nor the appellant/complainant/victim further challenged that decision.
Source reference: para. 7Issues
Whether the complainant/victim’s acquittal appeal under Section 372 CrPC could be entertained when the same judgment of acquittal had already been examined and affirmed by a coordinate Division Bench in an appeal preferred by the State?
Source reference: para. 6Whether entertaining a second appeal against the same acquittal judgment would be legally impermissible on the ground that it could result in contradictory findings after the judgment had attained finality?
Source reference: para. 7Law Applied
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits a victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, subject to the statutory requirements.
Source reference: paras. 6–7However, once the same acquittal judgment has been considered and affirmed by a competent coordinate Division Bench in an appeal preferred by the State, and that decision has attained finality, the same judgment cannot be assailed again in another appeal on the same facts and circumstances.
Source reference: paras. 6–7Re-entertaining such a challenge would be legally impermissible and could produce contradictory judicial findings.
Source reference: paras. 6–7No separate precedent was relied upon by the Court.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court accepted that the appellant had invoked Section 372 CrPC as a complainant/victim, but held that the statutory right of appeal could not be used to reopen an acquittal already affirmed by a coordinate Division Bench.
Source reference: paras. 5, 7The State’s appeal had comprehensively challenged the trial court’s acquittal, and its dismissal on merits on 1 August 2025 affirmed the acquittal judgment dated 29 May 2017.
Source reference: paras. 5, 7Since neither the State nor the appellant challenged the coordinate Bench’s decision, the acquittal had attained finality.
Source reference: paras. 5, 7Entertaining the present appeal would therefore permit a second challenge to the same judgment and create the possibility of contradictory findings.
Source reference: paras. 5, 7Holding
The High Court held that the acquittal appeal could not be entertained because the impugned acquittal had already been affirmed by a coordinate Division Bench and had attained finality.
Accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 167 of 2017 was dismissed, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.
Source reference: paras. 7–8Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Indian Penal Code, 18605
Original Court PDF
Bajrang Singh @ Neeraj SinghvsState Of Chhattisgarh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
