1 2025:CGHC:47987-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 348 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Santosh Kumar @ Santelal Bare S/o Itawari Ram Bare, Aged About – 52 Years, R/o Vill. Khurdur, Thana Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.22 17:25:21 +0530 2 2. By this appeal, filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), the appellant/State calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2007 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions trial No.404/2006, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), relating to the alleged homicidal death of Prem Kumar amounting to murder. 3. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Prem Kumar, was the son of accused Santosh alias Santelal Bare, and the complainant Hosh Kumari (PW-1) was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. After her marriage, Hosh Kkumari started residing with her husband at village Khurdur, where they lived in a joint family along with her mother-in-law, Ahgan Bai, sisters-in-law Anita, Sarita, brother-in- law Narayan, and sister-in-law Savitri Bai. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.10.2005, Prem Kumar was admitted for treatment at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at about 11:15 AM. On receipt of intimation of his death through written information (Ex.P/16) provided by the hospital authorities, Maudhapara Police Station registered a merg intimation vide Ex.P/6. Subsequently, on the basis of the said intimation, another merg intimation was registered at Police Station Kota on 09.06.2006 vide Ex.P/5. 3 5. In connection with the said merg enquiry, the Station House Officer, Kota, S.L. Chouhan (PW-22), conducted inquest proceedings (Ex.P/5) and recorded the statements of witnesses namely Govind Yadav, Netram, Shyamji, Santosh Baghel, Ramjhool Markam, Navneet Kumar, Janak Ram and Kotwar Jagmohan Das. 6. During the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Ulhas Gonade (PW-14) and a report was obtained vide Ex.P/13. While postmortem, Dr. Ulhas Gonade (PW-14) has found following injuries:- “External Examination: The body was of a male of average height and build, lying on the autopsy table in a prone position. He was wearing light blue shorts and a yellow towel. The eyes were closed, pupils dilated, mouth closed, tongue retracted, lips parted and teeth visible. The limbs were straight and postmortem rigidity was present throughout the body. Postmortem staining was noted on the dorsum. A silver-edged mark was present on the forehead. A cut leaf stitched wound was seen on the head. On the right frontal region, 3 cm left to the midline, there was a horizontal lacerated wound measuring 2–5 cm. An arrowhead-shaped injury was present on the upper part of the right leg, measuring 35 cm 4 × 15 cm. Five centimeters below, a transverse indentation of 25 cm × 15 cm was observed. Three centimeters below this, an indentation measuring 1.5 cm × 1 cm was noted on the dorsum. On the right side of the chest, an indentation of 125 cm × 2 cm was present. Two indentations measuring 10 cm × 7.5 cm × 1 cm each were found over the anterior and posterior iliac spines. Eight centimeters below, another indentation of 3.5 cm × 10 cm was observed. On the outer part of the right leg, there was an indentation of 4 in. × 3 in., and on the left leg an indentation of 7.5 cm × 25 cm was seen. On the left eyebrow, a wound of 12.5 cm × 1.5 cm was present. On the right side of the chest, an abrasion mark measuring 13 in. × 4 in. was noted, caused by splitting. On the upper part of the back, a dragging abrasion of 3 in. × 2 in. was present. The skin and frontal part of the head were soaked with blood. Internal Examination: All internal organs were healthy except for dural and subarachnoid hemorrhages present in the brain. The stomach and esophagus were normal, the small intestine contained partially digested food, and the large intestine was filled with fecal matter. Marked pallor was observed. Opinion: 5 In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to the injury on the shoulder and its resultant complications leading to cardiac and respiratory arrest. The death had occurred within 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination.” 7. In view of the injuries noticed on the body of the deceased during the inquest proceedings, an FIR being Crime No.174/2006 (Ex.P/7) under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC was registered on 17.07.2006 at Police Station Kota against accused Santosh alias Santelal Bare. 8. During the course of investigation, a memorandum statement of the accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/1, on the basis of which a bamboo stick and an iron crowbar were recovered at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3. Seizure memos and a site map of the place of occurrence were prepared vide Ex.P/12, and the seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination vide Ex.P/19 and a report was obtained vide Ex.P/21A and Ex.P/21. The accused was arrested on 18.07.2006 at about 19.00 hours vide arrest memo Ex.P/4. 9. Upon completion of the investigation and other necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to prosecute the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Accordingly, a charge sheet was filed before the 6 Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Ultimately, the matter was received for trial by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 12.01.2007. 10. In order to bring home of the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-22 and exhibited 21A documents as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/21A whereas the accused in defence, has examined two witnesses, such as DW-1 and DW-2 as also exhibited 9 documents as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/9. 11. The statement of the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him as appearing in the evidence led by the prosecution. He asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and claimed complete innocence. The accused specifically stated that the allegations levelled against him are baseless, that he has no connection with the alleged offence, and that he has been roped in due to ulterior motives. He further submitted that the investigation was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and hence, he deserves to be acquitted. 12. After affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017, acquitted the respondent of all the charges framed against him. 7 13. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. 14. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State, submits that the impugned acquittal is vitiated by material misappreciation of evidence and warrants interference under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. The trial Court’s conclusion is perverse, founded on conjecture, and has overlooked cogent prosecution evidence. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses; PW-1 Hosh Kumari, PW-4 Sudhakar Prasad, PW-5 Govind Prasad Yadav, and PW-10 Navneet Kumar, are natural, credible witnesses whose accounts are coherent and consistent with the FIR, inquest, and other contemporaneous records. The trial Court erred in rejecting their testimony over minor, immaterial discrepancies. Core facts regarding identification, assault, and resultant injuries are consistent, forming a reliable chain of evidence. Significant material evidence, including recovery of the bamboo stick and iron crowbar at the instance of the accused, seizure memos, site-map, and postmortem report (Ex.P/13), corroborates the prosecution case. Medical evidence confirms ante-mortem homicidal injuries. The accused’s allegation of custodial extortion is self-serving and uncorroborated. Defence witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) fail to rebut the core case. The acquittal is therefore based on conjecture and misappreciation. Proper evaluation of evidence establishes the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. The appeal should be allowed, 8 the acquittal set aside, and the accused convicted and sentenced accordingly. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the State’s submissions and contended that the impugned acquittal is the result of proper appreciation of evidence. The trial Court correctly held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is fraught with material contradictions and inconsistencies, undermining the prosecution story. Learned counsel emphasized that the trial Court considered infirmities in the prosecution case, including the doubtful recovery of the alleged weapons and the incomplete chain of circumstances, and rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent. It is submitted that where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail. The defence version regarding false implication due to improper conduct of the Investigating Officer cannot be ignored. Notably, the Investigating Officer himself lodged the FIR after a delay of 8–10 months and allegedly demanded and withdrew Rs.10,000/- from the accused’s account. PW-11, Jagmohan Das, also deposed that Govind Yadav contested the Panchayat election on a Congress ticket and the appellant’s wife contested as well. As such, the acquittal being well-reasoned and based on settled principles of law does not call for interference by this Court in appeal. 9 16. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and with due circumspection. We have also carefully perused the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the entire evidence and material available on record of the trial Court. The rival submissions advanced before us have received our anxious consideration in the light of the settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal. 17. This appeal challenges the acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. While exercising appellate jurisdiction, the Court must act with caution, recognizing that the trial Court has the advantage of observing witness demeanour and assessing credibility firsthand. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, but only if it is real and substantial, such as a doubt a reasonable person would honestly entertain. Mere theoretical doubts or minor discrepancies not affecting the core prosecution case cannot justify acquittal. The appellate Court must ensure the trial Court properly appreciated all evidence and extended the benefit of doubt in line with settled principles. 18. As held by the Supreme Court in C. Antony v. Raghavan Nair1, and Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha2, an appellate Court should not substitute its own view unless the trial Court’s findings are perverse or relevant, convincing evidence has been 1 AIR 2003 SC 182 2 AIR 2004 SC 1053 10 unjustifiably ignored, providing compelling reason for interference. 19. The principles in Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab3, clarify that while an appellate Court can examine an acquittal, it must do so cautiously. The trial Court has the advantage of observing witnesses and assessing credibility. Interference is warranted only if the trial Court committed a manifest error, ignored material evidence, or reached a conclusion based on conjecture or misappreciation. Minor discrepancies cannot outweigh the core, consistent, and credible testimony unless they go to the root of the case. Interference is justified only in exceptional circumstances where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice and held in para 6 as under:- “……….the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re-appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot 3 AIR 1987 SC 1083 11 legally interfere within an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous.” 20. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram4, the Supreme Court held that an appellate Court must exercise extreme caution before interfering with an acquittal. The trial Court’s advantage in observing witness demeanour and trial conduct cannot be lightly disregarded. Interference is warranted only in exceptional cases— where the trial Court committed a manifest error, overlooked material evidence, relied on conjecture, or reached a palpably perverse conclusion. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies not affecting the core prosecution case cannot justify acquittal. Thus, while an appellate Court may review an acquittal, it must do so circumspectly, extending the benefit of doubt only when a reasonable and substantial doubt exists and has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 21. Further, in the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala5, the Supreme Court held as under:- 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984 5 (2022) 8 SCC 440 12 "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. the Appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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." 22. While exercising appellate jurisdiction against an acquittal, the Court may re-appreciate all evidence such as, oral and documentary, to determine whether the trial Court correctly weighed the materials and assigned valid reasons. If the trial Court’s conclusions are unsustainable, erroneous, or perverse, the appellate Court may arrive at its own conclusion. 23. Applying these principles, we have examined the prosecution evidence in its entirety, considering witness credibility, consistency of statements, and logical inferences from proved facts. 24. The homicidal death of Prem Kumar is undisputed. Evidence shows that on 09.10.2005, Shiv Mangal Singh (PW-20) and other officials prepared the inquest report (Ex.P/7), served notices (Ex.P/8), submitted the postmortem application (Ex.P-14), and delivered the body to the father under proper procedures (Ex.P/9). PW-4 confirmed the Panchnama was correctly prepared. Dr. 13 Ulhas Gonade (PW-14) conducted the postmortem, identifying multiple external and internal injuries, including subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages, concluding death resulted from head injuries. Additional medical evidence (PW-12, PW-19) corroborates grievous injuries and their causal link to death. No cross-examination disputed homicidal origin of injuries. The procedural and medical evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Prem Kumar’s death was homicidal, caused directly by the injuries sustained. 25. As there is no eyewitness, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, which must be: (i) fully proved, (ii) definite and conclusive, (iii) consistent only with the accused’s guilt, and (iv) exclude all other hypotheses. The Court must examine whether this chain of circumstances is complete, cogent, and unbroken to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Hosh Kumari (PW-1) deposed that on 01.10.2005, she was at her in-laws’ home in village Khurdur. On that day, her husband, Prem Kumar, left home on his Bajaj scooter after dinner and did not return at the expected time. She stated that her husband returned home intoxicated later that night, and while she interacted briefly with him, she retired to her room due to ill health and did not witness any altercation. She heard some noise of quarrel outside but could not see who was involved. On the following morning, she found her husband lying unconscious with bleeding head 14 injuries. She was informed by her father-in-law that he had sustained the injuries during a fight. Hosh Kumari admitted that she had no personal knowledge of how her husband was injured or who caused the injuries. 27. PW-2 Kriparam had no knowledge of the incident. PW-3 Dube Kurre) saw Prem Kumar unconscious with head and eye injuries at Santosh’s house; Santosh allegedly admitted hitting him during a fight. PW-4 Sudhakar Prasad corroborated this, noting injuries to the head, eye, and back. PW-5 Govind Prasad Yadav claimed to have witnessed Santosh assaulting Prem Kumar and intervened to stop further beating. PW-9 Ramjhool denied witnessing any seizure or statement by the accused despite signing the memorandum and seizure notes and was declared hostile. PW-15 Purushottam Sahu facilitated the postmortem process and handed over the deceased’s body to his father under proper procedures. 28. PW-11 Jagmohan Das, the Kotwar, stated that before Navratri 2005, he learned from the accused and his wife that Prem Kumar, while drunk, had beaten them. He advised filing a police report but did not record one himself. That evening, he learned Prem Kumar had been taken to Bilatpur for treatment. After the body was returned, the accused asked him to register the death, but he delayed on the local officer’s advice due to village rumors that the accused had killed his son. He informed the police verbally. He 15 also noted that Prem Kumar was an alcoholic, Govind Yadav had assaulted him, Govind had a criminal record, and both local political activity and widespread rumors implicated the accused. 29. PW-14 Dr. Ulhas Gonade conducted the postmortem, finding multiple external injuries and internal subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages; cause of death was cardiac and respiratory arrest due to head injuries (Ex.P/13). PW-12 Dr. K.N. Choudhary and PW-19 Dr. Naresh Krishnani corroborated the severity of injuries and cause of death. PW-20 Shiv Mangal Singh prepared the inquest report (Ex.P/7), served notices (Ex.P/8), facilitated the postmortem, and ensured proper procedural compliance, including handing over the body with relevant documents (Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15). 30. PW-22 S.L. Chouhan, the investigating officer, recorded the accused’s memorandum statement (Ex.P/1) on 18.07.2006 and recovered a bamboo stick and iron crowbar (Ex.P/2 & P/3) from his pointing out. He clarified discrepancies in witness statements regarding the cremation, timing of cries, and other details, and denied knowledge of any withdrawal from the accused’s bank account while in custody. He also stated that he had never faced a criminal case, except a prior anti-corruption case from which he was acquitted. Regarding the investigation, he deposed that he received the case diary on 16.07.2006 while posted at Bana Kota. The inquest information from Police Station Maudhapara was 16 received at Kota on 09.06.2006. He registered the inquest and entrusted Sub-Inspector Paikra for verification. Since the incident occurred in Khurdur village, the diary was forwarded there, and the enquiry was conducted between 01.06.2006 and 15.06.2006. After receiving the diary, he recorded statements of Jagmohan Das and Navneet Kumar. On 17.07.2006, based on the inquest verification and witness statements, offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were registered against the accused. He denied that the diary had been handed over to him earlier or that any irregularity occurred in the registration of the crime. 31. DW-1 M.K. Mishra testified that bank account withdrawals are generally allowed only to the account holder, confirming Santosh Kumar withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 18.07.2006 (Ex.D/8). Likewise, DW-2 Suresh Sharma explained that a Hari Bhoomi newspaper report (Ex.D/10) claiming the accused withdrew money under police pressure was published by the Kota office and not independently verified. In cross-examination, he stated that he manages only the advertisement section, while the News Editor, Rudra Awasthi, controls publication. Ex.D/1 does not indicate whether it was sent by the Kota correspondent, and he is unaware if press releases from other sources are also published under Hari Bhoomi News, Kargi Road, Kota. 32. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied involvement, claiming false implication after the Investigating Officer demanded 17 Rs.10,000/-. He alleged that Rs.10,000/- was forcibly withdrawn from his account while in custody, which was reported in the newspaper. PW-22 (IO) recorded the accused’s statement (Ex.P/1) and recovered a bamboo stick and iron crowbar (Ex.P/2 & P/3), clarifying discrepancies in witness accounts. DW-1 and DW-2 confirmed that bank withdrawals are normally restricted to the account holder and explained the newspaper publication process. 33. Analysis of the prosecution evidence shows no direct eyewitness to the assault on Prem Kumar. PW-1 Hosh Kumari, due to ill health, did not witness the incident; PW-3 Dube Kurre and PW-4 Sudhakar Prasad gave inconsistent and exaggerated accounts; PW-5 Govind Prasad Yadav’s testimony was only partially corroborative. The accused’s memorandum (Ex.P/1) and alleged recoveries (Ex.P/2 & P/3) lacked independent verification, as PW- 9 Ramjhool denied witnessing them. While medical evidence confirmed homicidal death, it did not link the accused to the crime. 34. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)6, the Supreme Court held that every incriminating circumstance in prosecution evidence must be specifically put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; failure to do so, causing prejudice, vitiates the conviction. 35. Applying this to the present case, the accused raised a defence of false implication, alleging that the Investigating Officer demanded 6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 18 Rs.10,000/- and, on his failure to pay, falsely implicated him. Given the prosecution’s inconsistencies, the trial Court’s acquittal is a reasonable and justified conclusion, meriting no interference on appeal. 36. Upon careful reappraisal of the entire evidence, the trial Court’s acquittal of Santosh @ Santelal Bare is justified and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the homicidal death of Prem Kumar. Testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent, exaggerated, or unreliable, and alleged recoveries of weapons were not independently corroborated. While medical evidence (through PW-12 Dr. K.N. Chaudhary, PW-14 Dr. Ulhas Gonade, and PW-19 Dr. Naresh Krishnani) confirmed that the death resulted from multiple head injuries, it alone cannot link the accused to the crime without credible ocular or circumstantial evidence. 37. The investigation also raises serious doubts: the incident occurred on 01.10.2005, the deceased died on 08.10.2005, yet the FIR was lodged only on 17.07.2006. Coupled with the accused’s specific plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Investigating Officer demanded Rs.10,000/-, falsely implicated him upon non-payment, such delay undermines fairness and credibility of investigation. 38. Considering all these factors, the acquittal is a plausible and well- reasoned conclusion. The State’s appeal under Section 378(1) 19 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 39. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record to the Court concerned forthwith for its information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu