1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.44 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Incharge, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 – Jagatram, S/o Hirasai, Aged About 51 Years, Occupation Agriculture 2 - Pahalwan S/o Jagatram, Aged About 26 Years Occupation Agriculture/Labour Both are R/o Village Chirga Chhaparkona, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Adv and Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Adv Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey J. 27/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.10.2015 passed by learned Session Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in ST Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 No.33/2015, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Saikal Ram was the husband of the complainant Smt. Devkunwar and was missing since 24.10.2014. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a missing report before the Police Station Lundra on 26.10.2014. During the course of inquiry, on suspicion the respondents were interrogated upon which they stated that on the date of incident, i.e. 24.10.2014 in the evening at about 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. due to some dispute with the deceased Saikal Ram with regard to grassing of paddy by his cattle and due to abusing by the deceased, they assaulted the deceased by means of bamboo stick on his head, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and thereafter, in order to hide the evidence, after binding his legs and hands through his cloth (lungi), they thrown the dead body of the deceased in Karsudhab jungle. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused respondents and they were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the 3 same is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct prospective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent. The learned Trial Court has not considered the statements of PW-1 Devkunwar, PW-3 Gopalnath, PW-4 Kumar Das and PW-6 Dr. B. S. Kashyap in its proper perspective and has wrongly acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and finding of the learned Court below is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the aforesaid charges. 4 7. As per the prosecution, body of the deceased Saikal Ram was discovered as per memorandum of respondents but the learned Trial Court found that the memorandum and recovery of dead body was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. 8. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. 9. PW-1 Deokunwar, W/o deceased Saikal Ram, stated that last year on the date of Diwali, her husband went to old house at about 5 pm but he did not come back till 10 am of the next day, thereafter she searched him but could not find him, thereafter she lodged missing report. After 2 days of the missing report, policemen told her that the dead body of her husband is lying on the forest and dead body of her husband was recovered. She further stated that prior to 2 years of the incident, a quarrel took place between her husband and the respondents with regard to grazing of crops by cattle. She admitted this suggestion of defence that with regard to quarrel which took place prior to 2 years of the incident with the respondents, a panchayat meeting was convened and the matter was resolved. She also admitted that after the panchayat, the respondents and their family members used to come to do labour work in her house and they used to help them. She also admitted this suggestion that she has no knowledge as to who killed her husband. 5 10. Kamal Sai (PW-2) admitted his signatures on notice (Ex-P/1), inquest memo (Ex-P/2), memorandum (Ex-P/3 & P/4), seizure memo (Ex-P/5), (Ex-P/6), (Ex-P/7) (Ex-P/8) and (Ex-P/9) and also arrest memo of respondents (Ex-P/10 & Ex-P/11) but he denied any proceedings before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 11. PW-3 Gopal Nath admitted his signatures on dead body recovery memo (Ex-P/13) and memorandum (Ex-P/14) and also admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/6), memorandum (Ex-P/4), seizure memo (Ex-P/8) (Ex-P/7) (Ex-P/9) and arrest memo (Ex-P/10 & P/11) but he denied all proceedings before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that as per disclosure of respondent Jagat Ram, dead body was recovered but he denied all other seizures before him. He also denied his police statement (Ex-P/15). The Court also asked about statement (Ex-P/15) but he denied his police statement. He stated that he is sarpanch of village thats why he signed papers on police saying. 12. Kumar Das (PW-4) admitted his signatures on recovery memo (Ex-P/13) and memorandum (Ex-P/14). He stated that dead body was recovered as per memorandum of accused respondents, but in para 7 he stated that the accused did not tell anything to police 6 before him with regard to recovery of dead body. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 13. The Investigating Officer S. L. Nagendra (PW-8) stated that he recorded memorandum of respondents as per Ex-P/14 and as per the memorandum dead body of deceased was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex-P/13). It is clear from the dead body recovery memo (Ex-P/13) that some informer informed about the location of dead body. In Ex-P/13, it is held as under:- “vkt fnukad 28@10@2014 dks eq[kchj }kjk lwpuk feyk Fkk fd e`rd dks mlds ?kj iM+kslh txrjke ,oa igyoku dksjik us ekj dj dgh Qsdk gksxk D;ksfd fnukad 24@10@2014 dks e`rd us vius [ksrh dks vkjksih yksx /kku Qly dks eky cSy dks pjk;s gS uqdlku djus ij xkyh xqIrku fd;k FkkA mDr lansgh O;fDr;ksa ds eseksjs.Me dFku ij 'ko dks cjken djok;s gSA ;g e`rd lkbdy jk; dk gh gS mlds igus diM+s ywaxh ,oa ‘’kjhj ds cukoV dks ns[kdj 'ko dks igpkus gSA e`rd dk 'ko lM+&xy x;k gS cncw dj jgk gSA psgjk dks taxyh tkuoj }kjk [kk x;k gSAß 14. In this recovery memo, it was not mentioned that dead body was recovered as per memorandum of respondents Jagat Ram and Pahalwan. The police recorded memorandum (Ex-P14), but it is also clear that the police recorded only one memorandum of both respondents jointly. It is written in this memorandum as under:- “uke lansgh O;fDr;ksa 'ko feyus dk LFkku crkus okys%& ¼1½ txrjke firk fgjk lk; tkfr igkM+h dksjok mez 50 o"kZ lkfdu fpjxk Nkij dksuk ikjk Fkkuk yq.Mªk ¼2½ igyoku firk txrjke tkfr igkM+h dksjok mez 25 o"kZ lkfdu Nkijdksuk ikjk Fkkuk yq.Mªk” 15. The Investigating Officer denied this suggestion that he did not call both the respondents at police station on 27.10.2014. He 7 also denied that he committed maarpeet with them at police station and on 28.10.2014 he dropped them in a jeep to Village Chirga, Nawapara. 16. It is clear from recovery memo (Ex-P/13) that some informer informed about dead body and Investigating Officer recorded memorandum of both the accused jointly which creates doubt. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated all oral and documentary evidence and rightly found that as per Ex-P/13 recovery of dead body was made as per information of some police informer and after that memorandum (Ex-P/14) was prepared. It is also clear from FSL report that no human blood was found in recovery articles B, E & G. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Kewal Krishan, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 695, held in paras 14 to 16 as under:- 14. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to notice the law as to when it would be appropriate for this Court, exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court while reversing an order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The law in this regard is well settled. Normally, this Court is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal. But when it appears that the High Court has on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case and ignoring some of the most vital facts, acquitted the respondent and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court has resulted in a grave and 8 substantial miscarriage of justice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may rightfully be exercised (See : State of U.P. v. Sahai, (1982) 1 SCC 352). 15. In State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah, (2005) 3 SCC 169 reiterating the same view it was observed: “8……..This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.” 16. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174, it was observed: “190. ………..Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be “not guilty”.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka 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:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; 9 (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.” 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases, it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court appears to be plausible and possible view and in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity and looking to the limited scope of interference in an acquittal appeal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 20. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Radhakishan Agrawal Judge Judge Nirala