1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 403 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on 01.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on 04.04.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Rajpur, District Ambikapur, C.G. ...Appellant versus 1. Shankar Kujur, S/o Godam Ram, aged about 18 years, 2. Rakhuram, S/o Ramdilram, aged about 29 years, 3. Bihari Yadav, S/o Sahdev Yadav, aged about 29 years, 4. Rajkumar, S/o Heeralal Yadav, aged about 32 years, 5. Babula Uraun, S/o Karlu Uraon, aged about 22 years, 6. Madwari Ram, S/o Ramdil, aged about 22 years, 7. Bageshwar Ram, S/o Godam Ram, aged about 22 years, 8. Dashrath, S/o Faliram, aged about 29 years, 9. Sovin, S/o Ghogha Uraon, aged about 22 years, 10. Amrit, S/o Khasru Uraon, aged about 36 years, 11. Rajnath, S/o Khasru Ram, aged about 20 years, 12. Ropan Ram, S/o Sital Ram, aged about 20 years, All are resident of Village Junapara, Karwa, P.S. Rajpur, District Sarguja, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.04 17:35:39 +0530 2 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.158/2005, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein of the charge under Sections 148, 302/149 (on two counts) and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.01.2005, PW-2 Mangal Ram Uraon, lodged a report at Police Station Rajpur stating therein that on 01.01.2005, Motiram and Dilip (hereinafter called as 'deceased persons') had gone to the house of Indersai to take CD and TV, but the deceased persons did not return to their house. Thereafter, their family members started searching them and during search, PW-16 Kamal Ram Uraon lodged a missing report at police station and again while their family members were in search, they found the dead body of deceased persons buried in the sand near Mahanadi river. After that, he (PW-2) informed about the same to Police Station, Rajpur, pursuant to which, merg intimation (Ex.P-2) was recorded and FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the unknown person. In the said report, he (PW-2) has mentioned that he was suspecting that Bhagat, Shiva and Shivcharan killed the deceased persons. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Exs.P-33 & Ex.P-35 respectively and dead bodies of deceased persons were sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-23 Dr. Sharad Greval, who has proved the postmortem reports vide Ex.P-65 & 66 and opined that cause of death of deceased- Dilip was syncope due to excessive bleeding on account of head injury and mode of death was homicidal 3 in nature. As regards the death of deceased- Motiram, it was opined by PW-23 Dr. Sharad Greval that the dead body of deceased-Motiram was putrefied, therefore, no definite opinion was given by him. . 3. During investigation, accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Exs.P-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24 & 26 respectively, pursuant to which, clubs, bamboo sticks and blood like spotted clubs were seized vide Ex.P-5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25 & 27 from respondent No.1 to 3 & 5 to 11 respectively and likewise, one axe with wooden handle was also seized vide Ex.P-23 from the respondent No.12, pursuant to his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-22. However, no memorandum statement of respondent No.4 was recorded nor any seizure was effected from him. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (unexhibited) dated 13.05.2005, no blood has been found on the seized articles. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 before the concerned trial Court under Sections 148, 302/149 (on two counts) & 201 of IPC. Accused persons-respondent Nos. 1 to 12 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 26 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 66 documents connecting the respondent Nos. 1 to 12/accused persons to the crime in question. However, in their defence, respondent Nos. 1 4 to 12/accused persons have examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Harishchandra and exhibited six documents i.e. Exs.D-1 to D-6. 6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein of said charges leveled against them. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court holding that the accused persons/respondent Nos 1 to 12 are 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 statements of the eye-witnesses to the incident namely PW-6 Larang Sai Uraon, PW-8 Madhiro Bai Uraon and PW-9 Sahun Uraon, have not been scanned in its proper manner and that evidence of PW-7 Inder Sai Uraon, PW-11 Suresh Yadav and PW-12 Dharampal Uraon, who are stated to be the witnesses of last seen, has also not been considered by the trial Court to prove the complicity of accused persons in the crime in question and thereby, erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 12 from the commission of the alleged crime. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 would support the impugned judgment and submit that PW-6 Larang Sai Uraon, PW-8 Madhiro Bai Uraon and PW-9 Sahun Uraon, who are said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident and PW-7 Inder Sai Uraon, PW-11 Suresh Yadav and PW-12 Dharampal Uraon, who are stated to be the witnesses of last seen, have turned hostile and not supported the 5 prosecution case. He would further submit that as per FSL report (unexhibited) dated 13.05.2005, no blood has been found on the seized articles and that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 in the crime in question. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State and perused the material available on record. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 11. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 12 of the aforesaid offences? 12. PW-6 Larang Sai Uraon, PW-8 Madhiro Bai Uraon and PW-9 Sahun Uraon, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, have stated in their police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they have seen respondent No.1- Shankar, respondent No.11- Rajnath and Pappu Yadav (not impleaded as accused) assaulting the deceased-Motiram, however, on the contrary, before the Court, these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case 6 by stating that they have not seen the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 assaulting the deceased persons. This apart, PW-7 Inder Sai Uraon, PW-11 Suresh Yadav and PW-12 Dharampal Uraon, who are claimed to be the witnesses of last seen, have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case by stating that on the date of incident i.e. 01.01.2005, they have not seen the deceased persons in the company of accused persons. It is also to be noted here that the FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged on 10.01.2005, whereas the dead body of deceased persons were recovered on 11.01.2005, and that, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on 02.07.2005 and 04.07.2005 respectively, but in the FIR (Ex.P-3), there was no mention about last seen of deceased persons in the company of respondents/accused persons, inasmuch as, the FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged against unknown person. Furthermore, the missing report lodged by PW-16 Kamal Ram Uraon on 05.01.2005 has also not been exhibited by the prosecution and that, PW-2 Mangal Ram mentioned the names of three persons, Bhagat, Shiva and Shivcharan in merg intimation (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-3), suspecting that they killed the deceased persons, but after completion of investigation, police has filed final report only against respondent Nos. 1 to 12 and the above three persons have not been prosecuted by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statements of accused persons/respondent Nos.1 to 12, clubs, bamboo sticks, blood like spotted clubs and axe were recovered from the respective accused persons, but as per FSL report (unexhibited) dated 13.05.2005, no 7 blood has been found on the alleged seized articles. Although in the present case, prosecution case rests upon the witnesses namely PW-6 Larang Sai Uraon, PW-8 Madhiro Bai Uraon and PW-9 Sahun Uraon, who are said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident and that of witnesses namely PW-7 Inder Sai Uraon, PW-11 Suresh Yadav and PW-12 Dharampal Uraon, who are stated to be the witnesses of last seen, but these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case and that there is no cogent, clinching and reliable evidence is available on record to show that accused persons are the perpetrators of the crime in question. Thus, considering the entire evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, was justified in acquitting the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein of the said charges, which does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh