1 2025:CGHC:7522-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 132 of 2015 The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus Bodhan Singh S/o Mahaprasad Gond Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Shardapur, Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate and Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, despite service of notice. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 12.02.2025 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.02.13 10:35:01 +0530 2 dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) in Sessions Trial No.R-20/2014, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 07.01.2014, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-2) was lodged by one Ram Singar, who is the son of deceased- Ramkal Bai, before the Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur, stating therein, that when he returned home on the date of incident, he found his sister- Geeta Singh crying and upon asking, she informed that father- Bodhan Singh, the respondent herein, has killed the mother with the aid of axe. Based upon the said intimation, First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was registered on the same day in connection with Crime No.4/2014 against the respondent- Bodhan Singh with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Kamini Rai (PW-10), who opined based upon her report (Ex.P-16/A) that the deceased was died owing to anemia due to haemorrhage and accordingly, it was opined to be homicidal in nature. Based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-11), an axe with blood stained, alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged offence, was seized from the possession of the accused/respondent- Bodhan Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P-12) and was sent for chemical examination on 25.02.2014, however, no report in this regard was submitted from the 3 concerned Laboratory. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his final report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj against the respondent with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above and the matter was, thereafter committed to Court of Sessions for its trial, where charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 302 IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and has exhibited 22 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the alleged act of the respondent for the commission of the alleged offence, therefore, it cannot be said that he is the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has 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 of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the 4 alleged offence, as such. 6. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondent. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 07.01.2014, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-2) was lodged by one Ram Singar, son of the deceased, namely, Ramkal Bai, wherein, it was stated by him that when he returned home, he got the information from his sister, namely, Geeta Singh (PW-4) that his father- Bodhan Singh, the respondent herein, has killed his mother- Ramkal Bai with the aid of axe and based upon the said information, First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was registered against the respondent for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It, however, appears from the statement of Geeta Singh (PW-4), who informed regarding the commission of the alleged crime to her brother-Ram Singar (PW-1) that her father- Bodhan Singh has killed her mother- Ramkal Bai with the aid of axe, but when she was examined before the Court, it was, however, stated that at the relevant point of time, her mother was doing some work outside the home and, deposed further that she was not aware where her father has gone. Further of her testimony would show that when someone had shouted, then she came out and has seen her mother lying on the floor. In her cross-examination, she has denied specifically that her father has assaulted her mother with the aid of axe, as was informed by her to her said brother. Insofar as the statement of 5 her brother- Ram Singar (PW-1), who received the information from his sister, is concerned has, however, stated that when he asked from his sister, she replied that someone else has assaulted the mother. It, thus, appears that both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and Ramvriksh (PW-2), the brother of the respondent, though in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that his brother has assaulted his wife- Ramkal Bai with the aid of axe, but has, however, turned hostile without supporting the prosecution case. 9. It is to be seen further that the axe alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged crime was recovered with blood stained from the respondent vide seizure memo (Ex.P-12), but the attesting witnesses of it have, however, not supported the same and, that apart, the alleged axe, though was sent for its chemical examination, but no report in this regard has been placed on record. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been placed on record by the prosecution so as to hold that the respondent, in any manner, was involved for the commission of the alleged crime, occurred on 07.01.2014 and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita 6