1 2025:CGHC:24895-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 102 of 2015 • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • Uchitnarayan @ Mangada Ghansi S/o Panmeshwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Chachari Bohra, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 17/06/2025 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 29/01/2015 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.07/2014, whereby, the Respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.19 10:38:11 +0530 2 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 02/12/2013, a merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Bahla Kanwar (PW-1) before the Police Station Shankargarh of District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, stating that on previous day around 10:00 PM, deceased’s son, namely, Uchitnarayan @ Mangada Ghansi came and started quarreling with his father- Panmeshwar (deceased) with regard to some issue as he heard the noise from his house and on the next day morning when he reached his house, the deceased- Panmeshwar, who was the father of the Respondent, was lying with pool of blood and handle of an axe was there on the spot and, accordingly, it was stated that owing to some unknown reason, he has committed the murder of his father. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (EX.P-2) was registered by the concerned Police Station against the Respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in connection with Crime No.160/2013. Based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-14) of the Respondent recorded on 06/12/2013, the alleged weapon “Axe” was recovered with blood stained in presence of two witnesses, namely, Madan (PW-10) and Manraj (PW-15) and the article so seized was, however, not sent for its chemical examination. 3) Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Joseph Lakra, who vide his report (Ex.P-17) opined the cause of death to be head injury and after examining the alleged weapon “Axe”, has given the opinion vide report dated 16/12/2013 (Ex.P-18) that the alleged head injury could be caused by the said weapon and would be sufficient for his death. After completing the usual investigation, the Investigating 3 Officer has submitted its charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj against the Respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, who in turn, has framed the charge against the Respondent under Section 302 of IPC and, the charge, so framed, was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4) In order to bring home the guilt of the Respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, while none was examined by the Respondent in his defence. 5) The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent is not the author of 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. 6) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the finding 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 statement of Bahla Kanwar (PW-1), his wife Chandari (PW-2) and wife of the deceased, namely, Semait (PW-6), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 4 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 8) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9) From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent, who is the son of the deceased-Panmeshwar, has been charge-sheeted for the commission of the murder of his father with regard to the incident occurred on 01/12/2013 in the night about 10:00 PM. It appears that an information (Ex.P-1) was given by deceased’s neighbour, namely, Bahla Kanwar (PW-1) regarding the incident occurred on 01/12/2013, wherein, it was stated that in the night of previous day, the Respondent, who is the son of the deceased- Panmeshwar, came and started quarreling with his father with regard to some issue as he heard the noise from his house and on the next day morning, he has seen the deceased lying with pool of blood and the handle of ‘Axe’ was found there on the spot. An FIR (Ex.P-2) was thereafter registered against the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It appears further that based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-14), the alleged weapon ‘Axe’ was recovered from the Respondent on 06/12/2013, in presence of two witnesses, namely, Madan (PW-10) and Manraj (PW-15), who have, however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution story that the alleged weapon was recovered in their presence. That part, the weapon so seized was, however, not found to be sent for chemical examination, though the blood was found on 5 it for ascertaining the blood group of the Respondent in order to connect him with the alleged crime. 10) It is to be seen further that although said Bahla Kanwar (PW-1), the neighbour of the deceased, has heard the noise from the house of the deceased on the said fateful day that the deceased was assaulted by his son, but a bare perusal of his testimony, particularly paragraphs 4 and 8, would show that on the said fateful day, he was not at home, nor the said fact was revealed from the statement of his wife, namely, Chandri (PW-2). Insofar as the statement of the deceased’s wife, namely, Semait (PW-6) is concerned, it appears that she and her husband used to live at village Damhatoli Ayyari, while her son was residing at village Chachari alongwith his family members and, on the date of incident, she was with her son at the said village Chachari and deposed specifically that her son has not done anything with her husband. No cogent and reliance evidence has, thus, been placed on record by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge -Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant