1 2025:CGHC:16173-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 379 of 2010 State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant versus Ram Prasad @ Chamru S/o Kunwarlal Kol Aged about 28 years, R/o Jamunahitola, Dhalouli, P.S. Gourela, District Bilaspur (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Shri B.L. Sahu, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 07.04.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 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 23.05.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Pendra Road (CG) in Sessions Trial SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.04.08 10:37:47 +0530 2 No.426/2005, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 01.06.2005, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-7) was lodged by the respondent- Ram Prasad @ Chamru, before the Police Station, Gourela, stating therein, that on the previous day, i.e. 31.05.2005 around 8-9 pm, his father and mother, namely, Indibai, the deceased, have consumed liquor and thereafter, went to the house of one Lakhan and thereafter, went to the house of one Sukhlal and slept there and, on the next day morning, his father had returned, but mother was sleeping there and after knowing the said fact, he reached there around 8.00 am and took her, but his mother was unconscious and around 3-4 pm, she died. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered on 03.08.2005 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest (Ex.P-1) of the dead body was made on 01.06.2005 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Ashish Gupta (PW-10), who vide his report (Ex.P-12) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia and accordingly, opined to be homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested on 03.08.2005 and, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-2), a stick was recovered vide Ex.P-3 on 08.08.2005 in presence of Gorelal and Aghanuram. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the respondent- Ram Prasad @ Chamru for the commission of murder of his mother, namely, 3 Indibai and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where charges have been framed against the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents, while none was examined him in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of Chameliya Bai (PW-2), who has seen the alleged incident, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 4 perused the entire record carefully. 8. Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that in a case of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence would get re-enforced, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of "Atley v. State of U.P." reported in AIR 1955 SC 807 and, if two views are possible from the evidence on record, then, the Appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, as held by the Supreme Court, in the matter of "Sambasivan v. State of Kerala" reported in (1998) 5 SCC 412 and, what would be the approach while dealing with the acquittal appeal was laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of "Ramesh Babulal Doshi" (supra), wherein, it has been held at paragraph 7 as under:- “Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the abovequoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the 5 order to acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions…………….” 9. While keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters, it is necessary to examine the facts and the evidence as led by the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, are perverse or would deserves to be upheld. 10. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent, has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for the commission of the murder of his mother- Indibai. According to the prosecution, the respondent has committed the alleged offence because he was disturbed and sad a lot on account of too much consumption of liquor by his mother and, therefore, he pressed her neck and assaulted with the aid of stick. 11. In order to establish the alleged allegations that the respondent has committed the murder of his mother, one Chameliya Bai (PW-2), stated to have seen the incident, was examined. It was stated by her that when mother of the respondent was sleeping in the house of one Sukhlal, the respondent came along with his wife, namely, Sangita and assaulted her with the stick. She deposed further that after assaulting his mother, he took her to his house, where around 5.00 pm, she died. In her cross-examination, it was stated that because of heavy drinking, she (deceased) herself used to fell down and sometimes become 6 unconscious for 2-3 days. Her statement was, however, not found to be corroborated by respondent’s wife, namely, Sangita (PW-7), who was also present there and had seen the incident as narrated by her (PW- 2). According to her (PW-7) testimony, it appears that she (deceased- Indibai) died because of consuming liquor and similar is the statement of husband of the deceased, namely, Kunvar Lal (PW-8), who also stated that she died because of intoxication. Even Dr. Ashish Gupta (PW-10), who conducted the autopsy of the dead body, has stated at para 11 that due to excessive consumption of liquor, a person, many a time, becomes unconscious. It appears further from his report (Ex.P-12) that the deceased has sustained as many as 12 injuries, like contusion and abrasions, which could be inflicted by hard and blunt object. But, the stick (Danda) alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged offence was, however, not found to be recovered from the possession of the respondent as the witness of the seizure memo (Ex.P-3), namely, Aghanuram (PW-4) has not supported the same. That apart, the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be asphyxia and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that she (deceased) died because of the alleged assault with the aid of stick (Danda). It is to be seen further that an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against an unknown person on 03.08.2005 with regard to the incident occurred on 01.06.2005, i.e. two months after the occurrence of the the alleged report and no plausible explanation has been given to this effect, as to how the report was registered, after passing of such a considerable period of two months. 7 12. In view of above, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from commission of the alleged offence, occurred on 01.06.2005, under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita