1 2025:CGHC:35277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 278 of 2024 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. ... appellant versus 1 - Kejau Ram Sahu S/o Amritlal Sahu Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. 2 - Tirith Bai W/o Amritlal Sahu Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. 3 - Rakhi Sahu W/o Parram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal dated 27th May, 2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) in 2 Sessions Case No. 62/2021 whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.06.2021 at 9.00 am Amrit Sahu, who is resident of village Bencha, Police Station Mahasamund alongwith Kisan Sahu reached to the police Station and registered oral murg intimation to the effect that on 09.06.2021 his grand daughter Annapurna Sahu at around 6- 7 pm alongwith her mother and other children after a quarrelsome with her husband left the house. On the next day i.e. 10.06.2021 when they were searching for their whereabouts in the vicinity, then it was found that a woman and 5 girls have been found dead on the railway track. On the basis of said information, murg intimation was registered at Police Station Mahasamund and Panchnama was prepared and the matter was taken into investigation. After registering merg intimation No. 145/2021, 147/2021, 148/2021, 149/2021, 150/2021 & 151/2021, Sub-Inspector Kapishwar Pushpkar alongwith constable was sent to the spot for mourgue investigation, Panchnama and post mortem proceeding of the dead bodies and after due investigation, it was found that deceased Uma Bai Sahu and her five daughters namely, Annapurna, Yashoda Sahu, Bhumika Sahu, Kumkum Sahu, Tulsi Sahu have committed suicide by jumping infront of Train and on being asked from the relatives of the deceased, it was told that respondent accused Kejuram Sahu used to harass the deceased physically & mentally by stating that, she has given birth to the girl children only. 3. During investigation, it was further found that on 09.06.2021, respondent-accused Kejauram has committed maar-peet with the deceased/wife Uma Sahu and threw her out of the house alongwith children in the pouring rain, due to which, Uma Sahu and his five daughters were compelled to die by jumping infront of train. Based on which, Crime No. 199/2021 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the respondents accused namely Kejauram, Tirithbai and Rakhi Sahu in Police Station Mahasamund and they were arrested. During investigation, post mortem of the dead 3 bodies were conducted, statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared. After usual investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) i.e. trial Court, for trial. 4. The trial Court framed charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the same was read and explained to the respondents/accused. They abjured their guilt and entered into defence by submitting that they are innocent. 5. In order to establish the charge against the respondents/accusd, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which respondents/accused denied the material appeared against them in the case and they pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. 6. By the judgment impugned, the learned trial Court has acquitted all the respondents/accused persons of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC by extending them benefit of doubt. 7. Mr. Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is erroneous, contrary to the evidence available on record and is bad in law. He submits that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence which has been led by the prosecution clearly goes to show that deceased – Uma Devi Sahu was subjected to harassment in continuous instigation which ultimately led her to commit suicide. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence led before it resulted into the acquittal of the respondents. He further submits that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses basic ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC is established, which would require conviction of 4 the respondents under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 8. Per contra, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment impugned and submits that the marriage between the deceased / wife and respondent No. 1/husband was of more than 20 years. The allegation against the respondent No. 1/husband is that the deceased was blessed with five daughters and as no son was born out of their wedlock, she was subjected to harassment physically and mentally by respondent No. 1 and his family members i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3. Though the evidence in regard to some domestic dispute is available on record, but those domestic disputes are quite common in the middle class family and, therefore, even assuming the entire case as it is, ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC is not made out and, as such, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charges under Section 306 of IPC. He further submits that though the appellate Court has all the powers to re- appreciate the evidence available on record against the judgment of acquittal, however, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court may not be easily disturbed and if there are two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, one view favouring the respondents/accused should be adhered to, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant/State is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that after marriage of the deceased and respondent No. 1, they lived together for about 20 years. It is also not in dispute that they were blessed with five daughters, ranging from 18 years to 10 years. 11. From the perusal of evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is clear that there was some domestic dispute in the family and there may be some harrassment on the deceased on account of delivery of five girl children. 5 12. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ude Singh & others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, learned trial Court has clearly held that ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC has not been made out in the present case. 13. Law with regard to powers of appellate Court against the judgment of acquittal is no longer res integra. 14. In the matter of Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a matter of Appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidences on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidences brought on record contrary to law. 15. Further, in the matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 10 SCC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is further held that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible 6 evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It was also observed that the principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 16. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the afore-cited cases, the trial Court has recorded a finding relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court that the evidence available on record does not prove that the respondents/accused instigated, motivated, helped or incited the deceased to commit suicide by doing any positive act with criminal intent, thus, ultimately it can be said that the evidence available in the record in the case completely lacks the proof of the basic ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, which in the opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference. 17. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 18. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.01 17:39:17 +0530