1 2025:CGHC:2436-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 157 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Chhertu Ram S/o Raturam Nagwanshi, Aged About 49 Years, Occupation - Agriculture, R/o Shivnathpur, P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, despite service of notice. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 15.01.2025 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 SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.17 10:33:59 +0530 2 and propriety of the judgment dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja(CG) in Sessions Trial No.327/2013, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that on 22.08.2013, at 10.30 AM, a Dehati Nalishi was lodged by one Pancham Ram before the Police Station, Sitapur of District Surguja, stating therein, that he received the information from his daughter-in-law, namely, Devmuni that one Shankar Ram Nagwanshi has informed her that the respondent- Chhertu Ram has murdered his wife, namely, Puti Bai. Upon receiving the said information, he reached his house, where the deceased was found dead. It is stated further by him that when he inquired from Fulkunwari, who is the sister-in-law (Jethani) of said Devmuni, it was revealed that on the previous day at 05:00 PM, respondent- Chhertu Ram was assaulting his wife, who oftenly used to assault her and said Chhertu has murdered his wife while assaulting her with the aid of wooden stick, hands and fists. On the basis of said Dehati Nalishi, dehati merg (Ex. P-3) and numbered Merg (Ex.P-14) were recorded and thereafter, the said First Information Report (Ex.P- 15) was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No. 224/2013 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-10 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. M. Nikunj (PW-4) and after examining the dead body, he opined vide his report (Ex.P-6), the cause of death to be coma and shock occurred due to head injury and 3 accordingly, the death was held to be homicidal in nature. Disclosure statement of the respondent was recorded vide Ex.P-11 on 22/08/2013 and based upon which, the wooden stick and sickle were recovered from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-12). After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his final report before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitapur against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) for its trial, who in turn, based upon the materials available before it, framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, which was denied by the respondent and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and has exhibited 15 documents in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. 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, so as to hold that the respondent has committed the alleged offence and accordingly, acquitted him from the commission of the alleged offence 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 Court below holding that the respondent is not the author 4 of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 7. The respondent- Chhertu Ram has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with regard to the commission of murder of his wife, namely, Puti Bai on 21/08/2013. From perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged offence was registered against the respondent-accused on the basis of the merg intimation given by one Pancham Ram (PW-2), wherein, it was stated that he received the said information from his daughter-in-law, namely, Devmuni, who was informed by one Shankar Nagwanshi that the respondent has murdered his wife and upon receiving the said information, he reached the spot, where the deceased was found dead in the Veranda of her house. 8. According to the statement of Etwa (PW-1), it was revealed from his examination-in-chief that on the fateful day, the deceased had come to his house and consumed “Hadia”, a kind of liquor and at that time, the respondent came and demanded money from her and when she refused, he dragged her while assaulting with the aid of the wooden stick. It, however, appears from his cross-examination that on the said 5 fateful day, around 1.00 PM, he went to the house of one Sukh Sai and returned by 3.00 PM and has not seen the deceased- Puti Bai after 1.00 PM and, deposed further that he is not aware that the respondent- Chhertu Ram had come to his house at noon. 9. Pancham Ram (PW-2), who lodged the merg intimation, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was informed by his daughter-in-law, namely, Devmuni that Puti Bai has died and when he reached her house, where the respondent was found to be at home, but, has not stated anything and was kept silent. Further of his testimony would show that his said daughter-in-law informed him that one Shankar Nagwanshi informed her that the respondent has murdered his wife. Smt Fulkunwari (PW-6), who was the sister-in-law (Jethani) of said Devmuni has, however, turned hostile, without supporting the prosecution story. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence, as was led by the prosecution, it appears that none have seen the respondent assaulting his wife either with the aid of wooden stick or sickle. That apart, from the dehati nalishi (Ex.P-2), lodged by Pancham Ram (PW-2), it appears that his daughter-in-law, namely, Devmuni was informed by one Shankar Nagwanshi that the respondent has murdered his wife, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he (Shankar Nagwanshi) was not examined. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent has 6 committed the alleged crime and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 11. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita