1 ACQA No.96 of 2023 2025:CGHC:44234-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 96 of 2023 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Burgum, District: Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Mrinal Das S/o Nirmal Das Aged About 27 Years R/o P.V. -124, Avinash Nagar, Post Sangam, Police Station Pakhanjur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 01.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29/10/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act/Scheduled Crime), Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, C.G. in Special Sessions Case No.57/2017, whereby the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act/Scheduled Crime) has acquitted the respondent herein from the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 of the IPC, Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Section 38(2), 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.02 10:48:56 +0530 2 ACQA No.96 of 2023 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14/05/2017, the Informer gave a secret information to the police authorities that banned Maoist Commander Vilash @ Kailash, along with his Maoist associates, was expected to arrive in the evening. The informer further stated that Mrinal Das/respondent, a local Tendupatta Contractor, was going to deliver goods and money to the Maoists. Acting upon this information, the Station In-Charge duly recorded the same in the Roznamcha Sanha, prepared a Panchnama regarding the informer’s disclosure, and informed senior Police Officers. Accordingly, a joint team of police officials and personnel from the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces was constituted and dispatched to the location. During search operations, when the team reached near Tekri Jangal, Lalguda Patelpara, the Maoists suddenly opened indiscriminate fire on the police team. In self- defense, the police team retaliated. An encounter ensued, lasting for about half an hour, with heavy exchange of fire from both sides. During the encounter, the Maoists were calling each other by names such as Vilas, Sighanna, Hemlal, Sadhu Pandey, Jaymati Devi, Priya, and Maddo Namo. The police staff also identified Mrinal Das/respondent, the Tendupatta Contract Manager of the area. Despite repeated warnings and attempts to stop him, he did not surrender and fled along with the Maoists. Upon subsequent search of the encounter site, the dead body of a male Maoist was recovered. Near the body, one AK-47 rifle with magazine was found. The deceased was identified as Maoist Commander Vilash @ Kailash. During the course of investigation, on 3 ACQA No.96 of 2023 19/05/2017, the informer again conveyed that Mrinal Das/respondent was proceeding to village Mutanpal, Muskontapara Jangal to deliver goods and other materials to Maoist cadres. Thereafter, the then Police Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohandiguda, organized a siege and successfully apprehended Mrinal Das, who was travelling on a motorcycle to deliver the materials. Banners, clothes, and other incriminating items intended for Maoists were seized from his possession. Subsequently, aforesaid offense was registered against the respondent. 3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statements of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and they are innocent. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29/10/2022 acquitted the respondent herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has failed to take into account the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused/respondent. Manjhi Ram Mulaki (P.W.-2) in his statement has stated that he has seen the respondent running away with Maoists from the place of encounter on 14/05/2017. Dinesh Michcha (P.W.-7), Ranjit Tigga, Inspector (P.W.-9), Anup Singh (P.W.-10), Laxman Ram 4 ACQA No.96 of 2023 (P.W.-12) have also stated in their statements that they have seen the accused/respondent running away with Maoists from the place of encounter on 14/05/2017. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent/accused has played a significant role in providing goods and various helps to the Maoists and the respondent had actively participated in conspiracy with cadres of the organization of Maoist. He submits that the learned trial Court ignoring the above facts, passed the impugned judgment which is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said alleged incident happened on 14/05/2017 and after five days of that incident, the police authorities arrested the respondent on 19/05/2017 and also the recovery was made after the five days of incident. Learned counsel submits that on the date of incident i.e. 14/05/2017, encounter took place between the police authorities and the Maoists and because of scared, various other persons were running to save their lives, which includes the respondent herein. He submits that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the present case and only general items/goods of daily routine work has been seized from the respondent. No incriminating documents or material connecting the respondent to any unlawful activities have been recovered. It has been contended that the respondent is aged about 29 years at present, who is young person and is the breadwinner of his family. Hence, judgment of acquittal is well merited and does not require any interference. 5 ACQA No.96 of 2023 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 8. PW-1, Sawan Kumar Sarthi stated in his evidence that on 14/05/2017, he received secret information from an Informer that Maoist Commander Vilas @ Kailash had seen at Village Lalaguda Patelpara, where he was about to meet Tendupatta Contract Manager Mrinal Das. Then, he immediately informed his Senior Officers about this information and thereafter, recorded it in the Roznamcha Sanha and prepared the Panchnama, which is marked as Exhibit P-1, bearing his signature on part “A to A”. Thereafter, as per the directions of his Senior Officer, he proceeded with his staff towards Lalaguda Patelpara. As soon as they reached near the Tekri forest of Lalaguda Patelpara, the Maoists, who had already laid an ambush, on seeing the police team, started indiscriminate firing with the intention to kill them. In retaliation, they too fired in self-defense. The firing continued for about half an hour. Thereafter, the Naxalites fled from the spot. During firing, they were calling each other by the names i.e. Vilas @ Kailash, Siganna, Priya, Maddo, and Deve. Along with the Maoists, a person in civilian attire wearing a T-shirt was also seen escaping, who was identified as Mrinal Das, the Tendupatta Contract Manager of the area. However, in cross-examination, he admits that he is not a competent Officer to investigate cases registered under the NIA Act. 9. PW-2 Manjhiram Muchaki, stated in his evidence that on 19/05/2017, the police personnel came to his house and informed him that Mrinal 6 ACQA No.96 of 2023 Das/respondent was going to bring provisions for the Naxalites. Thereafter, he along with Balsingh was taken by the police into the forest. They were kept hidden there for some time, and the police informed them that the respondent Mrinal Das was about to arrive. The police then told them that Mrinal Das had come on a motorcycle and showed some articles, further stating that those articles had been seized from Mrinal Das. At that time, Mrinal Das himself was not present there. In that bag, there were posters, banners, and daily use articles, which the police stated belonged to Mrinal Das. On the same date itself, in his presence, the property described in seizure memo Exhibit P-13 (articles C-1 to C-2) was seized, on which his signatures are marked from A to A. 10. From the discussion of above evidence, it is manifest that during the firing between the police authorities and Maoists, one Maoist Commander namely; Vikas @ Kailas has died/shooted and his dead body was recovered which was sent for postmortem examination. The deceased Maoist was identified by Constable Jayaram, a resident of the same area, and by a confidential soldier, as Barsur Area Committee Secretary and Maoist Commander Vilas @ Kailash. The postmortem of the dead body of Maoist was conducted by Dr. Kaulashkar Shashikant Vitthalrao, PW-17. 11. So far as the participation of respondent is concerned, PW-1 Sawan Kumar and PW-2 Manjhiram, have stated that the respondent was seen with the Maosits on the date of incident i.e. 14/05/2017, and the 7 ACQA No.96 of 2023 respondent is the person who supplied the incriminating articles and goods to the Maoist. After five days of incident i.e. 19/05/2017, the police authorities arrested the respondent and recovered only general items which are uses for daily routine households works i.e. biscuits, bag, medicines, brush etc., as per seizure memo vide Ex.P-13. However, no evidence was produced in the case to prove what specific articles were delivered by the respondent to the Maoists for extending support, nor was any evidence produced to establish that the respondent had provided financial assistance to the Maoists in furtherance of supporting the activities of the banned Maoist organization, or that such assistance was the purpose of his meeting with Maoist Commander Vilas @ Kailash and others. No incriminating article was seized from the possession of the respondent. Hence, the prosecution has not proved that any offence relating to extending support to a Maoist organization was committed by the respondent. In addition, no oral or documentary evidence was available in the case to show that the respondent was a member of the banned Maoist organization. Therefore, in absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the respondent committed any offence relating to membership of a banned terrorist organization. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent committed any offence relating to membership of a terrorist organization. 12. It is a well settled law that an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the 8 ACQA No.96 of 2023 impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the evidence, the oral as well as documentary evidence, then the Appellate Court has right to reverse the decision of the trial Court. In absence of compelling and substantial reasons for doing so, if there are two possible or plausible reasons found from the record, the Appellate Court always should accept the decision of the trial court. 13. Even otherwise, it is the trite law that when two views are possible in the case and the trial Court has taken one of the views, the judgment of acquittal should not be converted into a judgment of conviction. {See : State of M.P. v. Bachhudas alias Balram and others (2007) 9 SCC 135}. 14. In this view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court cannot be set aside for convicting the respondents/accused. 15. As a sequel, the present appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep