1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 127 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on 03.01.2025 Judgment Delivered on 14.01.2025 • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Tulsiram (died) and as per Hon'ble Court Dated 03/08/2018, name of Respondent No. 1 Tulsiram Sahu has deleted. 2. Yogram Sahu, S/o Tulsiram Sahu, aged about 23 Years, R/o Village Bhaisatra Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.51/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu of the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.07.2014 at about 12:30 pm, respondent herein assaulted Budhara Bai (hereinafter called as AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.01.14 17:24:22 +0530 2 'deceased') with bricks and stick, as a result of which, deceased suffered grievous injuries over her body and died. Further case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2014, PW-13 Vishal Sahu lodged a report at Police Station stating therein that on 10.07.2014, due to construction of wall, some quarrel ensued between deceased & respondent/accused persons namely Yogram Sahu & Tulsiram (died) and on account of which, respondent-Yogram Sahu and Tulsiram (died) assaulted the deceased with bricks and stick, by which, she suffered grievous injuries over her body and died. Thereafter, merg intimation Ex.P-9 was recorded, FIR Ex.P-10 was registered against the accused persons and spot map Ex.P-2 was prepared. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-18 Dr. Virendra Sisodiya, who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-27). According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was due to severe head injury and death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Memorandum statement of the respondent-Yogram Sahu was recorded vide Ex.P-11, consequent to which, one soil stained brick was seized vide Ex.P-13. Vide Ex.P-15, clothes of respondent-Yogram Sahu was seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report Ex.P-34, blood has been found on the brick and clothes of respondent-Yogram Sahu. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, accused persons were charge- sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance 3 with law, in which, they abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and brought on record 34 documents. In their defence, accused persons have examined none, but exhibited six documents i.e. Exs.D-1 to D-6. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu of the charge leveled against him. During trial, co-accused-Tulsiram has died on 06.07.2015 and as per order of the trial Court, proceedings against him stood abated. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the finding of the trial Court acquitting the respondent-Yogram Sahu from the alleged offence is apparently contrary to law, as the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the eye-witness, namely Jaiyan Bai (PW-1) has not been considered in its proper manner by the trial Court and thereby erred in acquitting the accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused / respondent- Yogram Sahu would support the impugned judgment and submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court, after evaluating the material documents available on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case against the respondent-Yogram Sahu beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/State be dismissed. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment carefully. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. Case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statement of PW-1 Jaiyan Bai, eye-witness to the incident, who has stated that on 10.07.2014, respondent-Yogram Sahu was digging a pit in front of the house of deceased to construct a wall, due to which, quarrel took place between the deceased, respondent-Yogram Sahu and Tulsiram (died) and in that event, respondent-Yogram Sahu and Tulsiram (died) assaulted the deceased with bricks and stick, by which, she suffered grievous injuries over her body and became unconscious. Thereafter, she informed the incident to village Sarpanch and other villagers. However, on the contrary, in cross-examination, she admitted that accused-Tulsiram (died) assaulted the deceased with stick over her head, whereas accused-Yorgam Sahu was assaulting the deceased by throwing the bricks repeatedly. She further admitted that she had informed the police that accused-Yorgam Sahu was assaulting the deceased with bricks, but the same has not been mentioned in her 5 police statement. She also admitted that firstly she informed the incident to PW-2 Hemlal Sahu and thereafter to PW-5 Champa Bai, Kotwar, but PW-5 Champa Bai has stated that she does not know anything about the incident and PW-1 Jaiyan Bai did not inform her about the incident, which makes her version doubtful and that the other prosecution witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-1 Jaiyan Bai and her statement does not corroborate with the statements of other witnesses. As such, sole testimony of eye-witness PW-1 Jaiyan Bai is not reliable. This apart, pursuant to the memorandum statement of accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu vide (Ex.P-11), only one soil stained brick was seized, but PW-18 Dr. Virendra Sisodiya who examined the seized brick did not notice any soil on the seized brick and only noticed black spot, but the same has not been mentioned in the seizure memo vide Ex.P-13. Besides, PW-18 Dr. Virendra Sisodiya has opined that deceased died due to head injury and PW-1 Jaiyan Bai has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that only accused- Tulsiram (died) had assaulted the deceased with stick over her head, by which, she suffered injuries and died, meaning thereby, it was the accused-Tulsiram who had assaulted the deceased with stick over her head. Moreover, as per FSL report (Ex.P-34), although blood has been found on the seized brick, but it is not known as to whether the blood found on the brick was of human blood or not and only on the basis of recovery of one brick, respondent-Yogram Sahu cannot be convicted as it ought to have been proved by the prosecution by adducing cogent 6 and clinching evidence that seized brick from the respondent-Yogram Sahu was used for the commission of the offence, but it has failed to do so. 12. 12. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any clinching and reliable evidence to show that on the date of incident, respondent-Yogram Sahu assaulted the deceased with brick, by which, she suffered injuries and died and as such, acquitted accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu of the said charge leveled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused/respondent-Yogram Sahu is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh