1 2025:CGHC:35756-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 95 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Uttam Kumar Lodhi (Verma) S/o Late Dadu Verma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bidhouri, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, though served D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 24/07/2025 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 06/11/2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.21/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.25 10:55:52 +0530 2 2. Briefly stated the the case of the prosecution is that, on 03/08/2016, in the evening around 4.00 o’clock, the deceased- Keshav Nishad was under the drunken condition and was abusing filthy words in community stage and due to which, some altercation took place with the respondent- Uttam Kumar Lodhi, owing to which, the said respondent assaulted him (Keshav Nishad) with the aid of Gedi (bamboo made article), as a result of which, he fall down on earth and sustained injuries and blood was oozing from his lips, forehead and left side of head. It is alleged further that on the next day, i.e., 04/08/2016 at about 3.00 o’clock, deceased (Keshav Nishad) was found lying in the garden and was taken to the Community Health Centre, Chhuikhadan, whereby, the Doctor informed that, he has died. A merg (Ex.P/15) was, thereupon, lodged by deceased’s nephew, namely, Shankar Lal Nishad (PW-17) and upon its enquiry, it is found that, due to assault made by the said respondent, the death of the deceased was occurred, and, therefore, an FIR against him (Uttam Kumar Lodhi) has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in connection with Crime No.230/2016 by the Police Station- Chhuikhadan. Inquest of the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Lila Ramteke (PW-8), who vide his report (Ex.P/6) opined the cause of death of the deceased to be occurred on the head injury and during investigation, the alleged Gedi, alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged crime, was seized from the respondent on 23/09/2016 vide Ex.P/3 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramesh Verma (PW-2) and Dhannu Ram (PW-6) and after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed under Section 302 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of wife of the deceased, namely, Parniya Bai (PW-1), his daughter, namely, Chameli (PW-3) and Shitlesh (PW-7) and the statement of eye witnesses, namely, Gopal Nishad (PW-4), Jitan (PW-15) and Haresh Verma (PW-16), have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such, from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice of this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- 4 Uttam Kumar Lodhi has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for the commission of murder of one Keshav Nishad. According to the prosecution, on 03/08/2016, in the evening around 4.00 o’clock, an altercation was taken place between the deceased- Keshav Nishad and the respondent- Uttam Kumar Lodhi and at that particular time, the deceased was assaulted by him (Uttam Kumar Lodhi) with the aid of Gedi (bamboo made article), owing to which, he sustained injuries and died on 04/08/2016. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the wife of the deceased, namely, Parniya Bai was examined as PW-1 and it appears from her testimony that, on the said fateful day, i.e. 03/08/2016, she was at home along with her daughters, namely, Chameli (PW-3) and Shitlesh (PW-7) and after hearing noise of filthy words, she and her daughters came out from the house and has seen that her husband was being slapped by the respondent, who was holding the stick at that particular time and deposed further that on account of the alleged assault, he (her husband- Keshav Nishad) fell down on the floor and even when he fell down, the respondent has assaulted him with leg. She deposed further that her husband sustained injuries on his head, mouth, eyes and nose, on account of the alleged assault made by the said respondent and deposed further that her deceased husband was not in a drunken condition. Perusal of her testimony would show further that instead of admitting him into the hospital, he was brought home by her along with her daughters and on the next day morning, she went to the school and when she returned, her husband (deceased) was found 5 to be sleeping at home and, thereafter, he (deceased) went to outside and when he was not returning after considerable time, she and others started searching about him and found him lying in the garden and, thereafter, they took him to home and, thereafter, brought him to the hospital at Chhuikhadan, where, Doctor informed that he has died. 9. Chameli (PW-3), who was the daughter of the deceased, has stated in her evidence that when she came out from the house along with her mother and sister, she has seen that her father (deceased- Keshav Nishad) was slapped by the respondent- Uttam Kumar Lodhi and her father has sustained injuries on her nose, head and lips and the respondent, after seeing them, left the place and they took her father to home, who was crying in pain and on the next day, they left him at home and went outside. She deposed further that on the next day, i.e., on 04/08/2016, she was informed by her mother that he was lying in the garden and, it appears further from her testimony that her father was in drunken condition on the said fateful day. 10. According to the statement of Ku. Shitlesh (PW-7), the another daughter of the deceased (Keshav Nishad), the respondent while assaulting her father had brought him at home and on account of the alleged assault, he sustained the injuries on his head and nose and blood was oozing and her mother was at home at that particular time. The statement of her mother (PW-1) was, thus, not found to be corroborated by her that she (mother) has seen the incident or was not in intoxicating stage and, has stated further that on the said fateful day her father, was in drunken condition. 11. Gopal Nishad (PW-4) was the neighbour and, it appears from 6 his testimony that on the said fateful day, they were celebrating the festival of Hareli and, he was sitting on the stage along with others. It appears further from his testimony that, on the said fateful day, the respondent came with Gedi (bamboo made article) and has stopped the deceased while using the filthy words and at that particular time, Jitan (PW-15) and Haresh (PW-16) were also on the stage and according to them, the deceased was in drunker condition and, it appears further from his testimony, particularly, paragraph 6 that though, he has seen the deceased was assaulted by respondent but how he (Keshav Nishad) has sustained injuries, was, however, not aware. Jitan (PW-15) who has also seen the incident has, however, stated that on the said fateful day, when he was sitting on the stage, the deceased was slapped by the respondent twice and has seen the deceased– Keshav Nishad falling from the stage, but how he was falling, he was not aware. Haresh Verma (PW-16) who was also sitting on the stage on the said fateful day has stated specifically at paragraph 5 in his cross-examination that the deceased has already sustained the injuries on his head and hand, prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident. The statement of others are formal in nature. 12. What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence led by the prosecution that though, it was alleged that the deceased was assaulted by the respondent with the aid of Gedi (bamboo made article), but none of the witnesses have, however, stated that, he was assaulted with the aid of said Gedi, nor the alleged incident was found to be established by way of cogent and reliable evidence, as, rather Haresh (PW-16), who has seen the incident, was found the injury on 7 the deceased’s head and hand even prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident. 13. 13. That apart, though, the deceased was assaulted on 03/08/2016, but for the reasons best known to the relatives of the deceased, he was, however, not taken to the hospital and was admitted only on 04/08/2016 when he was found lying in the garden and how he was lying in the garden, none of the witnesses have, however, stated so. In such circumstances, and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it is difficult to hold that the respondent – Uttam Kumar Lodhi was involved for the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 14. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant