1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 312 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Dilip Sethia, S/o Chhanuram Sethia, Aged About 34 Years, Caste- Sundi, Occupation- Constable, R/o Police Community Hall, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 31.01.2025 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 06.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagadalpur in Sessions Trial No. 29/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from 2 commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the respondent/ accused- Dilip Sethia and Phoolo, the deceased, were living together in Police Community Hall on the first floor at Jagadalpur and beside their room, one Rajuram Markam (PW/5) was living along with one Payke (PW/6). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 09.02.2017 at 11:00 PM, one Asharam Mandavi (PW-9), and the respondent/accused- Dilip Sethia knocked the door of said Rajuram Markam (PW-5) and told him that Phoolo has fired a shot upon herself and they have heard the sound of gunshot. Upon knowing the said fact, they all went there and found that the door was closed from inside and after opening the same, somehow or the other, they found the deceased-Phoolo, lying dead in a pool of blood and one rifle was lying near her. The matter was, thereafter, reported to the Police Station and during investigation, the dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW/3) who, in-turn, vide her report (Ex.P/9) opined that the alleged fire arm injury is anti-mortem in nature and is sufficient to cause spontaneous death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. 3. The offence was, accordingly, registered in connection with Crime No.40/2017, against the respondent under Section 302 of IPC and after completion of due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, with regard to the said offence, who in-turn, committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, where the charge under Sections 302 and 3 506 of IPC was framed against the respondent-Dilip Sethia, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents, while none was examined by him in his defence. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story, as such, the respondent cannot be attributed for the commission of the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding of the Trial Court, acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to law, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent, as such. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment of acquittal as passed by the Trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that, on account of the incident, occurred on 09.02.2017 at 11:30 PM, when a noise was heard by Asharam Mandavi (PW-9) and the respondent Dilip Sethia, they 4 along with one Rajuram Markam (PW-5), who was residing beside the house of the deceased, rushed to the spot, where the door of the room of the deceased was found to be closed from inside and after opening the same, the deceased was found lying dead and blood was oozing from her chest and one rifle was found near her body and, based upon which, the alleged offence has been registered and the respondent, who was residing with the said deceased, was charge-sheeted for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the IPC. 10. In order to establish the said fact that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged offence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the said fact by way of producing cogent and reliable evidence. However, from perusal of the statement of Rajuram Markam (PW/5), who resides, beside the room of the deceased, it appears that in the night about 11:00 pm, one Asharam Mandavi (PW-9), Devkumar Gour (PW-7) and Respondent-Dilip Kumar knocked his door and informed that the deceased -Phoolo caused gunshot injury to herself and after receiving the said information, they all rushed to the place of incident, where the room of the deceased was found to be closed from inside and after opening the door, somehow or the other, the deceased was found lying dead in a pool of blood. Similar was the statement of Devkumar Gour (PW/7) and said Asharam Mandavi(PW/9). It, thus, appears from their testimonies that on the fateful day, at 11:00 PM, the respondent/accused-Dilip Sethia was along with Asharam Mandavi (PW-9) and Devkumar Gour (PW-7) and was not found with the deceased and she (deceased) alone was, thus, 5 found to be at her room, when the alleged gunshot injury was caused to her, on the said fateful day. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed on record by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent/ accused-Dilip Sethia was involved in any manner with regard to the commission of the alleged crime and, the Trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan