1 2025:CGHC:24278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 87 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG) ... Appellant versus 1. Bhimaram, S/o Ayata Dhruva, aged about 55 years, 2. Hadaram, S/o Bogi, aged about 53 years, Both are R/o Permaras Chhindwada, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondents : Shri Manoj Chouhan, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 16.06.2025 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 29.11.2010, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.06.17 10:37:43 +0530 2 Trial No.64/2010, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2010 at 10.00 am, deceased- Udey has left the house and informed his son- Lachhin (PW-4) that he is going to repay the amount of Rs.20/-, which he borrowed from one Sonadhar, but did not return till next day morning and, subsequently, he (Lacchin) received an information from the villagers that one body is lying near the village Chhindwara, Litipal Murum Khodra. Upon receiving the said information, he along with other villagers, went there and has seen the body of his father, which was lying there and blood was oozing from his head. He lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P-7) on 05.02.2010 before the Police Station- Darbha of District Bastar and based upon its enquiry, an FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered on 30.04.2010 against the respondents in connection with Crime No. 25/2010 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-9 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Raj (PW-5), who vide his report (Ex.P-11) opined the cause of death to be excessive bleeding on account of the head injury. During the course of investigation, an axe with blood stained was recovered vide Ex.P-14 on 30.04.2010 from respondent No.2-Hadaram in presence of 2 witnesses, namely, Surjal (PW-6) and Suklo (PW-7) and, the article so seized was sent for its chemical examination, but no FSL report has been placed on record. After completion of the usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur against the respondents for 3 commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/ 34 IPC and matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where charge has been framed against the respondents under the said offence, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, while none was examined by them in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of an eye-witness, namely, Mangdu(PW-1), held that the statement of him is not reliable and the respondents can not be held to be involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime 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 recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of an eye-witness, namely, Mangdu (PW-1), has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 4 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 respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC with regard to the incident occurred on 04.02.2010 when the dead body of the deceased, namely, Udey was recovered on the basis of the merg intimation (Ex.P-7) lodged by his son- Lacchin (PW-4) on 05.02.2010. According to the prosecution, one Mangdu (PW-1) has seen the alleged incident. However, a bare perusal of his testimony would show that though, it was stated by him at paragraph 2, that he has seen the respondents committing the murder of said Udey and informed the said fact to his son (Lacchin) after three months that his father was murdered by the said respondents with the aid of “axe” and, deposed further in his cross-examination that the respondents have committed the murder of said Udey while using the “axe”. The alleged version of him that three months after the occurrence of the alleged incident, he informed the deceased’s son was, however, not found to be corroborated by the said Lacchin (PW-4), the son of the deceased- Udey, as it was stated by him in his cross-examination that he has not received any information as such from said Mangdu (PW-1). It is to be seen further at this juncture that if, son of the deceased would have been informed by the said eye-witness that his father was murdered by the respondents then, he would have definitely informed regarding the said fact at the time of lodging the merg intimation(Ex. P- 7), but he has, however, not stated anything as such. That apart, the alleged version of said eye-witness that the respondents while using 5 the alleged weapon have committed the murder of said Udey, but the said fact was, however, not found in his statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the said eye-witness in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 9. Insofar as the recovery of the used weapon “axe” with blood stained is concerned, it appears that the same was recovered after passing of a considerable period on 30.04.2010 and even the chemical report was not placed on record, though, the same was sent for its chemical examination. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents are in any manner involved in connection with the alleged crime and the trial Court after examining the evidence led by the prosecution has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 11. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita