1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 8 of 2021 Judgment Reserved on 24.03.2026 Judgment Delivered on 07.04.2026 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Sastu Ram, S/o Rijhan Ram Uraon, aged about 22 Years, 2. Rijhan Ram Uraon, S/o Tejram Uraon, aged about 45 Years, 3. Smt. Rimjo, W/o Rijhan Ram, aged about 40 Years, All are R/o village Mahila (Tongripara), Police Station Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Sitapati, W/o Shobhit Lohar, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), Police Station Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. Heard on admission. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.04.07 17:05:01 +0530 2 231/2013, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 314 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.02.2013, at about 7:30 a.m., PW-6 Basant, father of the deceased, lodged a merg intimation (Ex.P-10), stating that the deceased had developed a love relationship with respondent No.1- Sastu Ram and, as a result of such relationship, she had conceived. It is further the case of the prosecution that respondent No.1, with the assistance of respondent No.2- Rijhan Ram Uraon and respondent No.3- Rimjo, took the deceased to respondent No.4 Sitapati, a resident of village Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), where her pregnancy was allegedly terminated by pressing her abdomen and administering some herbal medicine. It is alleged that due to this, her condition deteriorated and she ultimately died during treatment at Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 06.02.2013. On the basis of the merg intimation (Ex.P-10), FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused persons. 3. During investigation, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-9 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. PW-4 Dr. Ganesh Beck conducted the postmortem and opined that the cause of death was cardiac arrest consequent to septicemia, leading to failure of vital organs and gave postmortem report (Ex.P-6). The accused persons were taken into custody vide Exs.P-18 to P-21 and statements of the witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The 3 accused persons/respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charge leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons despite there being sufficient oral as well as medical evidence available on record. It is contended that the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased clearly establish that deceased was pregnant by accused- Sastu Ram and that he, along with the other co-accused persons, had taken her for the purpose of abortion, which ultimately resulted in her death. It is further submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution case regarding abortion and the subsequent septicemia leading to death. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no direct evidence to show that the accused persons had taken the deceased to the house of co-accused - Sitapati or that any abortion was carried out by her. It is further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on hearsay evidence and suffers from material contradictions and omissions. Therefore, the learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused persons, which calls for no interference by this Court. 4 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala1 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 the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons of the aforesaid offences. 11. From the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Ganesh Beck, who conducted the postmortem examination of deceased and proved the PM report (Ex.P/6), it is clear that the deceased died due to septicemia leading to failure of vital organs. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that no definite signs of abortion or premature delivery were found. Thus, the medical evidence shows the cause of death, but does not clearly prove that any abortion was carried out or connect the accused persons with the alleged act. 12. This apart, PW-3 Maheshwari (mother of the deceased), PW-6 Basant (father of the deceased) and PW-1 Anil Tirkey (brother of the deceased) have stated about the relationship between the deceased and 1 (2022) 8 SCC 440 5 accused/respondent No.1- Sastu Ram and have deposed that the deceased had become pregnant. However, their statements regarding the alleged act of abortion are not based on direct knowledge. PW-3 Maheshwari admitted in her cross-examination that she did not personally see the accused persons taking the deceased to any place for abortion. Similarly, PW-6 Basant also admitted that he had no direct knowledge about the place or manner in which the alleged abortion was carried out. Likewise, PW-1 Anil Tirkey has also not witnessed the incident and his testimony is based on what he came to know from others. Thus, their evidence on the crucial aspect of abortion is hearsay in nature and does not inspire confidence. 13. It is also significant to note that the prosecution witnesses have admitted that, prior to being taken to Mission Hospital, the deceased had been treated by a local practitioner at village Ghoghra. This fact introduces a possibility that the condition of the deceased might have deteriorated due to such treatment. However, no proper investigation has been carried out in this regard and the said practitioner has not been examined as a witness. Further, no independent witness from village Saraswatipur (Dhamnadand), where the alleged abortion is stated to have been carried out by respondent No.4 Sitapati, has been examined by the prosecution. No material object, instrument or substance allegedly used for the purpose of abortion has been seized or produced before the Court. There is also no evidence to show that respondent No.4-Sitapati was engaged in performing such illegal acts. Moreover, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the death was a direct consequence of any illegal abortion conducted by the 6 respondents. This lack of corroborative evidence creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. 14. Thus, from the overall appreciation of the evidence, it emerges that although deceased died due to septicemia, but the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons/respondents had taken her for the purpose of illegal abortion or that such abortion was carried out by any of the accused persons. The evidence on record is not sufficient to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused persons. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The learned trial Court, after an elaborate discussion and proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents, in furtherance of common intention, caused miscarriage resulting in death of the deceased and accordingly, acquitted them of the charge leveled against them. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of 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 7 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 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." 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. 17. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh