1 2025:CGHC:31848-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 243 of 2025 Ramji Sahu, S/o Late Maniram Sahu, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Kanshinagar, Nilgiri Mohalla, Ward No.-15, Korba, Post And P.S. - Korba, District - Korba (C.G.), (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ravishankar Sahu @ Ravi @ Dara, S/o Vijay Kumar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Hasaud (Sharda Chowk), P.S.- Hasaud, District – Sakti (CG), 2 - Bodhram Sahu @ Dadu @ Pau, S/o Baishakhuram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Senduras, P.S. - Malkharauda, District - Sakti, (CG)-- (Accused Persons) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Kosir, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For State/Respondent No.3 : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 10/07/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31/01/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.11 10:43:56 +0530 2 Judge, Sarangarh, Sessions Division- Raigarh in Case No.77/2023 (Session Trial), whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that, on 20/09/2022, a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was lodged by one Suresh Banjare (PW-1) before the Police Station- Sarangarh, stating therein, that he has seen an unknown dead body floating in the river and, based upon the said information, an enquiry was carried out and, an FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered on 15/02/2023 by the concerned Police Station against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC, as it was revealed from the enquiry that the deceased- Lilesh Sahu had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.1- Ravishankar Sahu @ Ravi @ Dara, while Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.2- Bodhram Sahu @ Dadu @ Pau, in order to provide them employment in the Company and, since they have neither been given employment nor the amount received by him (deceased- Lilesh Sahu) was returned to them, as such, they have assaulted the deceased and thrown him into the river, where he died, while drowning. Inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/8 and the postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar Patel (PW-20) and vide report (Ex.P/10) opined the cause of death to be asphyxia, occurred due to drowning. During investigation, one key of the motor-cycle 3 (Pulsar) belonging to the deceased was seized from respondent No.1- Ravishankar Sahu @ Ravi @ Dara vide Ex.P/28, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/22), while motor-cycle (Discover) bearing registration No.CG11C7977 and its key was recovered from respondent No.2-Bodhram Sahu @ Dadu @ Pau vide Ex.P/29, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/23) and, during the course of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the investigations were going on against some other suspected persons and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge under the above mentioned offence was framed against the respondents, who have denied and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents, along with one C.D. (Art. 1), while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not at all involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted with regard to the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the father of the deceased, namely, Ramji Sahu (PW- 4 23). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents were 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 wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Shashi Sahu (PW-14) and father of the deceased, namely, Ramji Sahu (PW- 23), have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such, from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/State has supported the aforesaid contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that, the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of IPC. According to the prosecution, since the deceased- Lilesh Sahu had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent No.1- Ravishankar Sahu @ Ravi @ Dara, while Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.2-Bodhram Sahu @ Dadu @ Pau, in order to provide them employment in the Company, but since neither they have been given employment, nor the amount received by him (deceased- Lilesh Sahu), was returned, therefore, they have 5 assaulted him on the said fateful day and thereafter thrown him into the river where he died while drowning, as revealed from the postmortem report (Ex.P/10). 8. In order to establish the alleged allegations, one Shiva Sahu (PW-2) was examined and it appears from his testimony that, he received the information that two persons have been arrested for the death of the deceased- Lilesh Sahu and, he has seen six others along with them (present respondents), namely, Nandkishore Sahu, Chhotu, Harishankar Sahu, Churamani Sahu, Bhaskar Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu and, it reveals further from his testimony that they all were apologizing before the Town Inspector for their guilt and praying to save themselves, while involving the respondents for the alleged crime with an assurance that they will be saved subsequently by them. 9. Bhushan Prasad Sahu was examined as PW-3 and according to him, the respondents and others have stated in the Police Station- Kosir that they have committed the murder of the deceased- Lilesh Sahu. Rajkumar Sahu (PW-6), whose name was mentioned by Shiva Sahu (PW-2) in his statement, has deposed that he is not aware regarding the alleged incident and likewise, Nand Kishore Sahu (PW-8), whose name was also mentioned by said Shiva Sahu (PW-2), deposed that he received the information regarding the death of said Lilesh. 10. Smt. Shashi Sahu (PW-14), who is the wife of the 6 deceased- Lilesh, has, however, stated entirely a different story by saying that her husband was threatened to be killed by one Churamani as there was a dispute of money between them and, likewise is the statement of the deceased’s father, namely Ramji Sahu (PW-23). The statements of other witnesses are formal in nature. 11. What is, therefore, reflected from a bare perusal of their testimonies that none of them have stated anywhere regarding the alleged allegation that the respondents have assaulted the deceased- Lilesh Sahu and, thrown him into the river, as they have neither been given employment, nor the amount received by him, for the said purpose, was returned. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, virtually been placed on record by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents, in any manner, were involved in connection with the alleged crime. The trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting them from the commission of the alleged crime. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant