1 2025:CGHC:49356-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 79 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramdas Vishwakarma S/o Mudrika Vishwakarma, Aged About 47 Years, Occupation - Agriculture, 2 - Rajnath Singh S/o Shri Ramlakhan, Aged About 36 Years, Occupation- Agriculture, Both R/o Village Lodha, Police Station- Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (CG) ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : None, though served For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 26.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 09.10.2017, passed by the Second SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.26 17:08:27 +0530 2 Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja(CG) in Sessions Trial No.R-59/ 2016, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that during the period, i.e. from 18.03.2016 to 20.03.2016, the respondents have committed the murder of Urmila Devi by assaulting her with the aid of stone on her head in Salie Banwa forest of village Lodha, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. A merg intimation (Ex.P-14) was lodged by the son of the deceased, namely, Rajesh Vishwakarma on 21.03.2016, before the Police Station- Ramchandrapur of District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, stating therein, that he was a Driver by profession and was in Raipur, came to know that his mother is not at home in the village for the period of 03 days and stated further that, on 18.03.2016, his mother had received a telephonic call from one Ramdas Vishwakarma, the respondent No.1 herein, and since then, she was not found at home and, therefore, he inquired about her through his friend, namely, Sakendra Vishwakarma, but the dead body of his mother was found in the said forest on 21.03.2016 and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, during enquiry, the respondents have been charge- sheeted for the offence mentioned herein-above. 3. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution that the respondents are involved for the commission of murder of the deceased- Urmila Devi and, in order to establish the alleged fact, memorandum statement of Rajnath Singh, the respondent No.2 herein, was recorded on 3 26.03.2016, vide Ex.P-1, based upon which, G.I. wire and stone was recovered from him, vide Ex.P-3, while a stone with bloodstained was recovered from the spot on 26.03.2016 at the instance of Ramdas Vishwakarma, the respondent No.1, vide Ex.P-4. Though, the alleged articles, alleged to have been recovered from them, but, the attesting witnesses of these seizure memos, namely, Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) and Naresh Suryavanshi (PW-2) have, however, failed to establish the same. Even, no human blood was found on the soil and the stone, recovered from the spot at the instance of respondent No.1-Ramdas Vishwakarma and, even the Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-6), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased- Urmila Devi, has opined that the injury caused to her was a week prior to the said postmortem, conducted on 21.03.2016. Moreover, perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, would also do not reveal the involvement of the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution attributing the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 4. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE sunita