1 2025:CGHC:8584-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 273 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, P.S. Frejarpur (Parpa), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. Anish Jain S/o Surendra Jain, aged about 25 years, R/o Thakur Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Denis John S/o Daud John, aged about 28 years, R/o Nayamunda/Shantinagar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. Dharmuram S/o Dhansay, aged about 25 years, R/o Shantinagar/ Nayamunda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Raghunath Kashyap S/o Motiram Kashyap, aged about 21 years, R/o Nayamunda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5. Toman Singh S/o Shatrughan Singh Thakur, aged about 25 years, R/o Nayamunda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State :Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents :Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate appears along with Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.02.20 10:37:54 +0530 2 Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 19.02.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.10.2005, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.276/2004, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34,120-B and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2004, a Merg intimation was lodged by one Gupteshwar, when he has seen one dead body near the “Sargipal forest” of village Kumbharwand and, based upon which, an FIR (Ex.P-48) was registered on 04.05.2004 against an unknown person under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-2 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Virendra Jha (PW-23), who, however, was unable to give definite opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased vide his report, marked as Ex.P-27. Based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-10) of respondent No.1- Anish Jain, one mobile bearing No.94252 29437 was seized vide Ex.P-11 from his house on 09.05.2004 and based upon his another disclosure statement (Ex.P- 13), recorded on 07.05.2004, one Jeri can was recovered vide Ex.P-14. 3 The dead body of the deceased was identified vide Ex.P-12 by the brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Harishankar Singh (PW-3) and the nephew of him, namely, Amrish Singh (PW-4) and, a copy of an agreement (loan agreement) was recovered from the house of the deceased vide Ex.P-5 at the instance of deceased’s sister, namely, Reeta Singh (PW-2). After completion of usual investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur in connection with crime No.71 of 2004, against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. The matter was thereafter, committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial, where, charges were framed against the respondents under Sections 302/34, 120-B and 201 of IPC, which were 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 29 witnesses and has exhibited 72 documents, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not the authors of the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence as mentioned herein-above 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 trial Court holding that the respondents are not the 4 authors of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the material available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents, 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. 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 on the basis of the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1), lodged by one Gupteshwar on 03.05.2004, a dead body was recovered from “Sargipal forest” of village Kumharwand and, based upon which, an FIR was registered against an unknown person, vide Ex.P-48 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It appears that the dead body of the deceased was identified by his brother-in-law, namely, Harishankar Singh (PW-3) and his nephew, namely, Amrish Singh (PW-4) vide Ex.P-12. The dead body, thus, found to be that of Dinesh Singh. 9. Gupteshwar, who lodged the Merg intimation (Ex.P-1), has been examined as PW-1 and based upon which, the dead body was recovered and, an FIR was, thereafter, registered on 04.05.2004 against an un-known person under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Reeta Singh (PW-2) is the sister of the deceased- Dinesh Singh and, according to her testimony, it appears that on the previous day of the 5 occurrence of the alleged incident, i.e. 01.05.2004, the deceased had come to her house and left in the evening around 5 to 6 pm, but did not return, therefore, she lodged the missing report and since the missing report was lodged by her, therefore, after recovery of the dead body, it was informed to her and after identification of the dead body by the relatives of the deceased, it was held by the trial Court that the dead body was of said Dinesh Singh. It appears further from her statement that one agreement/loan agreement, marked as Ex.P/7-C, was recovered at her instance from the house of the deceased and a bare perusal of the alleged agreement would show that the respondent No.1- Anish Jain had agreed to refund the loan amount of Rs.85,000/-, which alleged to have been borrowed by him from the deceased on 28.02.2004, by 01.06.2004. Alhough, the alleged agreement was found to be executed and attested before the Notary, but the signature of deceased- Dinesh Singh was not find there, nor the attesting witness of it was examined. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it, in order to attribute the said respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. Harishankar Singh (PW-3) and Amrish Singh (PW-4), as observed herein-above, have identified the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-12. Umesh Kumar Singh (PW-5), in whose presence, the alleged articles were recovered from respondent No.1- Anish Jain has supported the alleged sizure memos. Prakash Singh Thakur (PW-9), who has seen the deceased- Dinesh Singh near the Gayatri Petrol Pump, was informed by him that he is going to Frejarpur, as he was called by said Anish Jain, the respondent No.1 herein. Vinod Kumar 6 Joshi, who was examined as PW-11, was running the Service Center, where respondent No.1 has cleaned his vehicle, though, it was stated by him at para 3 that there is blood on it, but at para 9, he has stated specifically that no blood has, however, visible on it. Anand Mishra (PW- 20) was a Notary, in whose presence, the alleged agreement/loan agreement (Ex.P/7-C) was attested, has stated that the signature of deceased- Dinesh Singh is not there on the alleged document. Dr. Virendra Jha (PW-23), who examined the dead body of the deceased was, however, unable to give any definite opinion regarding the cause of death, vide his report (Ex.P-27). The statements of other prosecution witnesses are formal in nature. It appears further that the statement of respondent No.5 (Toman Singh) was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., who has stated that on the date of incident, there was a quarrel between the respondent No.1- Anish Jain and the deceased- Dinesh Singh regarding the alleged amount and respondent No.1 was being beaten by the said deceased- Dinesh Singh and at that particular time, other three accused persons namely, Denis John, Dharmuram and Raghunath Kashyap were intervened the matter and, Anish Jain- respondent No.1 herein, with the aid of coconut coir rope, pressed his (Dinesh Singh) neck and because of that, he died and at that particular time, he (respondent No.1) has threatened the others to kill, if they disclosed regarding the alleged incident. But, neither the alleged “coconut coir rope” was recovered nor the statement of this witness was found to be corroborated by others, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon his version, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 7 10. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it, thus, appears that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of the alleged crime, which occurred on 03.05.2004. 11. It is the settled principles of law that in order to record the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it is mandatory that all the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, had to be established conclusively. However, as observed herein-above, no cogent and reliable evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondents, in any manner, were involved in connection with the commission of the alleged crime. The trial Court, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, 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