1 2025:CGHC:48734-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 47 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Subhash Sharma (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 23-07-2025. 2 - Ajit Singh Rajput, S/o. P.S. Rajput, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Ward No. 13 Sindhori, Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.S.Marhas, Addl. A.G. For Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board (23.09.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.26 14:16:25 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. Admit Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The appellant has preferred acquittal appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, by which the respondent No.1 (died & deleted) and respondent No.2 acquitted from the offence under Sections 302/23 & 323/34 (twice) of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 27.03.2013 at 5:40 P.M. in front of house of Parikshit near Bhairav Mandir, Ward No.12, Bemetara, two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Kishan (now deceased), as respondent No.1 assaulted by iron rod and respondent No.2 assaulted by hand & fist, by which deceased Kishan suffered grievous injuries and he was escorted to the 3 hospital wherein he was declared dead. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-20, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-19, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.15 and dead body of deceased Kishan was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.K.Sharma (PW-7), who proved the post- mortem report vide Ex.P-11, according to which, cause of death was stated to be intracerebral hemorrhage and neurogenic shock due to blunt injury back of head left side and death was homicidal in nature. Kamla Bai (PW-5) and Goverdhan Netam (PW-14), injured eye-witness, were also medically examined vide Ex.P-26 & Ex.P-27. Spot map was prepared by Kamesh Sharma (PW-14) vide Ex.P-21. Pursuant to memorandum statement of Sonu @ Golu, iron pipe was seized vide Ex.P-6 and motorcycle was seized vide Ex.P-4 as per the memorandum statement of Subhash Sharma (R-1). The seized iron pipe was sent for chemical examination to FSL, but no blood was found on the seized iron pipe as per the FSL report (Ex.P-34). 3. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents and the accused/respondents in support of their defence have not 4 examined any witness but have exhibited documents Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral & documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused/ respondents No.1 & 2, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the State. 5. Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the appellant/State, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave illegality in acquitting Subhash Sharma (died & deleted) and Ajit Singh Rajput by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and submit that though Sagar (PW-6), Kamla Netam (PW-5) & Arjun Sahu (PW-3) have turned hostile, but injured brother of the deceased Gowardhan Netam (PW-14) and Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court ought to have recorded conviction and as such, the appeal be allowed setting aside the acquittal order. 6. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned judgment and submit that Gowardhan Netam (PW-14) who is alleged eye-witness has reported the matter to the police on the basis of statement of 5 Sagar (PW-6) & Kamla Netam (PW-5) but both have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court is absolutely justified in not relying the testimony of Gowardhan (PW-14). Furthermore, the trial Court is also justified in not relying the statement of Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24), as according to the statement of Kamlesh Sharma (PW-15), Patwari, who had prepared the spot map, the place of incident could not be seen from the place where Dev Kumar (PW-24) was sitting in his shop and further he has criminal background and, therefore, the trial Court has cogent reason to disbelieve the testimony and there is no such other statement to believe. Furthermore, with respect to Subhash Sharma (Respondent No.1), the appeal has been declared abated and only allegation of causing injury by hand & fist was leveled against Ajit Singh Rajput (Respondent No.1), therefore, acquittal order of the trial Court is in accordance with law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, 6 for which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand 1 , whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as under: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482- 83, para 29) 6 (2024) 8 SCC 149 “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while 1 2025 INSC 114 7 dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however,must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, 8 there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ ” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 9 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 10 9. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that, the case of the prosecution was based on the statement of eye-witnesses Arjun Sahu (PW-3), Kamla Netam (PW-5) mother of the deceased, Sagar (PW-6) step brother of the deceased, Gowardhan Netam (PW-14) real brother of the deceased and Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) who had seen the incident nearby his shop. However, the testimony of the witnesses have been disbelieved by the trial Court holding that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they are not reliable and their statement cannot be believed to record conviction. 10. In order to consider the correctness of the impugned judgment of acquittal, we will examine the statement of the aforesaid witnesses one by one to find out as to whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused/ respondents herein by not relying upon their statements. 11. Arjun Sahu (PW-3), who was sitting along-with the deceased in the motorcycle, as deceased and PW-3 both were good friends, in the statement before the Court, in para 2, has clearly stated that near Bhairav Mandir, the motorcycle driven by Subhash Sharma and their motorcycle both were collided 11 to each other and thereafter, he left the place. As such, he has clearly stated that he could not see the incident and he has been declared hostile. After declaring hostile, on leading question being put to him, he has not at all supported the case of the prosecution at all and, therefore, it has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. 12. Sagar (PW-6), who is step brother of the deceased, has stated that in front of the house of Parikshit, motorcycle of the deceased Kishan and motorcycle of Subhash Sharma (respondent No.2) collided with each other, by which Kishan suffered injuries on his head and died. He had seen the collision of motorcycles of deceased Kishan & Subhash Sharma (respondent No.2) and that fact has been informed to his Mousi Kamla Bai (PW-5). He has also stated that he had not seen any maar-peet by respondent No.1 & 2 with deceased Kishan and he has been declared hostile and on leading question being put, he has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. 13. Smt. Kamla Netam (PW-5), mother of the deceased Kishan, has stated that on hearing that there is quarrel between her son Kishan & Subhash Sharma, she proceeded towards the spot, but when she reached to the spot, she couldn’t see any 12 quarrel and no one was there including her son. She has further stated that her other son Sagar (PW-6) informed her that Kishan was escorted to the hospital. As such, she had not seen the incident and she was also declared hostile and on leading question being asked, she has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. She has also stated that when she reached to the spot, Dev Kumar Sinha was not there and she has also refuted the suggestion that Subhash Sharma has committed any maar-peet. As such, this witness is also of no use to the prosecution. 14. Next eye-witness is Gowardhan Netam (PW-14), who is brother of the deceased. His statement is based on the statement of his brother Sagar (PW-6), who has turned hostile. According to Gowardhan Netam (PW-14), he was firstly informed by Sagar (PW-6) in presence of his mother Kamla Netam (PW-5) that the respondents herein have assaulted deceased Kishan, then, firstly his mother Kamla Bai (PW-5) had gone to the place of incident and thereafter, he followed her mother and when they reached they saw that the respondents herein were assaulting his brother Kishan. In para 9 of his statement, he has admitted that firstly her mother (PW-5) reached to the spot and when her mother 13 reached to the spot and saw the incident, she became unconscious. However, the trial Court has disbelieved the statement of Gowardhan (PW-14) for the reason that according to him, Sagar (PW-6) had informed about the incident that respondents were beating the deceased. However, Sagar (PW-6) did not say so and only stated that he had informed about the incident of collision of two motorcycles to Kamla Bai (PW-5) and Gowardhan (PW-14) and furthermore, according to Gowardhan (PW-14) himself, his mother Kamla Bai (PW-5) reached to the spot first, but Kamla Bai (PW-5) in her statement has clearly stated that when she reached to the spot, no one was there. Gowardhan (PW-14) has also stated that the respondents have also assaulted him, but as per the medical report Ex.P-27 proved by Dr. Smt. Rajshree Devghar (PW-21), no external injury was found over the body of Gowardhan (PW-14). As such, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statement of Gowardhan Netam (P-14). 15. Now, the last witness is Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) who is said to be the eye-witness to the incident. As per his statement, he had seen the incident from his shop situated in his house, which has been shown in the spot map (Ex.P-21), 14 as the incident had taken place 100 meters away from his shop/ residence. However, Kamlesh Sharma (PW-15), Patwari, in para 6 of his statement before the Court has clearly stated that Dev Kumar Sinha could not see the place of incident sitting in his house/shop clearly. However, Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) has criminal background and he was involved in 3 to 4 criminal cases including murder case, which was admitted by the Investigating Officer- Anup Kumar Bajpeyi in para 31 of his statement. Apart from that, the incident is of 27.03.2013 and statement of this eye-witness was recorded on 09.05.2013, whereas the shop of Dev Kumar Sinha is 100 meters away from the place of incident, which the trial Court has noticed and clearly stated that no reason has been assigned for recording the statement of eye- witness for more than 1 ½ months. Furthermore, the trial Court has also noticed that Kamla Netam (PW-5), mother of deceased, has not supported the case of the prosecution at all and there was no reason by the mother of deceased to not inculpate the respondents who are real culprits, which also persuaded the trial Court to take the view to acquit the respondents herein. 15 16. In sum & substance, eye-witnesses Arjun Sahu (PW-3), Kamla Netam (PW-5) and Sagar (PW-6) have not supported the case of the prosecution and the statement of Gowardhan Netam (PW-14), brother of the deceased, is based on the statement of Kamla Netam (PW-5) & Sagar (PW-6) and, therefore, they were rightly not relied upon by the trial Court and statement of Dev Kumar Sinha (PW-24) also for the reasons mentioned herein above has rightly been disbelieved. 17. In view of the above, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents herein and we do not find that the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, warranting interference. Accordingly, the trial Court is absolutely justified in acqutting the respondents herein. Consequently, this acquittal appeal is dismissed finding no merit. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Ashok