1 2025:CGHC:32191-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 208 of 2018 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Chhagan Kanwar S/o Late Shivcharan Kanwar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Raka, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 11.07.2025 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 20.12.2017 passed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.14 10:33:49 +0530 2 the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Trial No.17/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 11.03.2016 at 23.25 hrs., an information was given by Amrautin (PW-8) to the Police Station, Dongargarh regarding unnatural death of her mother- in-law, namely, Kumari Bai wife of Harakram, who was lying dead on the bed in her house. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered by the Police Station, Dongargarh on 11.03.2016 against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, during investigation, a broken chain (Mala) and Scarf (Gamchha) were recovered from the respondent/accused vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 on 28.03.2016, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-5) and, the broken chain, which is seized from the respondent was identified by her husband vide Identification Memo (Ex.P-2) on 25.05.2016 in presence of his son, namely, Chaman Kumar, which was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, the Executive Magistrate, Smt. Namita Markol (PW-2). Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Suchita Shrivastava (PW- 13), who vide her report (Ex.P-14), opined the cause of death of the deceased to be asphyxia, occurred due to strangulation and, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before 3 the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC in connection with Crime No.116/2016 and the matter was thereafter committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge under the above-mentioned Sections has been framed against the respondent, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, apart from Articles ‘A-1 to A-6’, which are the photographs of the deceased, 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 the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the respondent in any manner is involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted 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 findings recorded by 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 recovery of the broken chain 4 belonging to the deceased from the respondent vide Ex.P-6, duly identified by her husband- Harakram (PW-9), has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 6. On the hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statement of husband of the deceased, namely, Harakram (PW-9), who identified the alleged chain owned by his wife, submits that since at the time of identification of the alleged article, one of the Police Officer was present and, therefore, the alleged identification was rightly held to be not proved, nor even Chaman Kumar, in whose presence, the alleged identification was made, was examined and, thus, the trial Court has not erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent- Chhagan Kanwar, who is brother-in-law of the deceased- Kumari Bai, has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 11.03.2016 when the deceased- Kumari Bai was found to be dead. According to the prosecution, the respondent has committed the murder of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) on account of the land dispute. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegation, a broken chain and Scarf (Gamchha) were recovered from the respondent vide seizure memo 5 (Ex.P-6) on 28.03.2016 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Nirmal Das (PW-5) and Bhagirathi Sinha (PW-10) based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-5). But from a perusal of the alleged seizure memo (Ex.P-6), it appears that a broken chain, alleged to have been owned by the deceased, was recovered from the respondent and was identified by her husband- Harakram (PW-9) vide Ex.P-2 in presence of his son- Chaman Kumar, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he (Chaman Kumar) was not examined. It reveals further from the testimony of the deceased’s husband- Harakram (PW-9), particularly paragraph 5 of his testimony, that when he identified the same, one of the Police Officer was present and that apart, though, the alleged identification was carried out by Naib Tahsildar, the Executive Magistrate, namely, Smt. Namita Markol (PW-2), who stated that the alleged chain was not in a broken condition, but a seizure memo (Ex.P-6) of it would, however, reveal the fact that it was recovered in a broken condition. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it, as the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged chain, owned by the deceased, was recovered from the respondent. 10. It is to be seen further that although, it was alleged by the prosecution that because of the land dispute, the respondent has committed the murder of his sister-in-law, but a bare perusal of the statement of her daughter-in-law, namely, Amrautin (PW-8), would, however, reveal the fact that there was no land dispute with the 6 respondent, as such. 11. In view of the aforesaid background, neither the alleged chain, owned by the deceased, was duly identified, nor the alleged ‘motive’ was found to be proved and, the trial Court while taking note of these material facts, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita