1 2025:CGHC:29697-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2031 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kosir, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Chavan Lal Khunte S/o Jagatram Khunte Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ucchabhitthi, P.S. Kosir, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Present District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant/State: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02 . 07 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for applicant on I.A No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 398 days in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.01 of 2025 is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.29/2021 (State Vs. Chavan ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Lal Khunte), whereby the respondent / accused has been acquitted from charges under Section 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11/03/2021, Vishram Khunte, grandfather of deceased Laxyendra alias Lucky, gave a written application to the police station in-charge, Kosir to the effect that his grandson Laxyendra alias Lucky, age-17 years, is missing since 01.00 pm on 10/03/2021. On the basis of said written complaint, a First Information Report was registered against unknown persons at Police Station, Kosir under Crime No. 57/2021 to the effect that on 10/03/2021 at 01.00 pm, the deceased asked for money from his grandfather to get glass installed; then the deceased went out of the house and talked to accused Chavan Khunte in front of his house at 01.00 pm and after that there was no trace of the deceased. It is mentioned in the First Information Report that ...... at 10.42 pm, a call came to Chavan Khunte's house, he talked for 0.27 seconds, someone spoke from Lakshendra's mobile saying that Lakshendra has been kidnapped and was asking for money, a message came on Chavan's phone and a message also came on Lakshendra's father Janak Ram's mobile and in the morning also a message came on Janak Ram and Chavan's mobile at 6.40.…" On 11/03/2021, a map of the place of incident where the kidnapped/abducted/deceased was seen (the lane in front of his house) was prepared; Class-5 progress card of the deceased was seized from the father of the deceased in which his date of birth is mentioned as 24/03/2004; 3 Memorandum statement of accused Chavan Khunte was recorded during investigation. 5. As per the memorandum statement, the deceased had taken around Rs. 75,000/- as loan from the accused gradually and was not paying it back and used to threaten the accused to kill him and throw his body away; therefore, with the intention of killing Lakshendra alias Lucky, on 10/03/2021, the accused bought a plastic bag, rope, towel, a bottle of liquor from a shop in Sarangarh and called the deceased Lucky to his house at 1.00 pm. From 1.00 to 4.00 pm, the deceased and the accused sat in the accused's house and chatted, after which both of them left from village Uchbhitthi to Kosir on motor cycle no. CG 07 AL 3312, via Mudwabhatha Khaparakhar, and drank liquor in a field near Khaparakhar, outside village Uchbhitthi; After this, they went to Kosir where a person named Rathkumar from the village saw them on their way. After reaching Kosir, they withdrew Rs. 500 from Dinesh Kurre's customer service centre. Then, after wandering through Sarsiwan, they returned to village Uchbhitthi Khapra Khar Khet. After this, when the accused demanded the return of the loan amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the deceased started quarrelling with him. Then the accused hit Lucky on the front of his neck with a sharp blade kept with him and tied both his hands and legs with a rope kept in his bag. He killed him by cutting his neck several times with the blade. He covered the body with straw. He threw the blade nearby. He went home, changed his shirt and pants, washed his hands and feet and went to the deceased's house and started helping in the search. After coming home, he spoke to his father 4 from the mobile of the deceased Lucky and in order to save himself, he sent a message to mislead the police and make it look like a kidnapping. He also went to Kosir police station to lodge a report with his grandfather Vishram regarding the disappearance of the deceased. 6. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Chavan Lal Khunte, on 14/03/2021 at 18.10 hrs., seizure of the dead body was done from the field of Bhanu Chandra, village Uchbhitthi Khaparakhar, in the presence of witness Duje Ram and witness Shatrughan; on 14/03/2021 at 18.50 hrs., on being reported by complainant Budhram Jangde, rural Merg Intimation was established on the spot and investigation was taken up; under Section 175 of Criminal Procedure Code, witnesses were given notice for dead body panchnama. After conducting inquest, dead body of the deceased was sent for conducting postmortem; after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over in a supurdnama for burial; a map of the incident spot was prepared; a sharp blade of Super Max Company with blood stains on it was seized at a distance of 5 steps from the incident spot itself. Blood soaked soil, plain soil, two plastic disposals, one empty bottle of country liquor and the original Aadhar card of the accused were seized from the incident spot itself on 16/03/2021. One REDMI mobile phone of deceased Lucky with model number M 2003J1551 and IMEI No. 1- 860862044329359 and 2- 860862044329367 with SIM number 9179578411 was recovered from the house of the accused in village Uchbhitthi. One realme mobile of the accused whose IMEI No. is 1- 5 863047043426177, 2- 863047043426169 with 7898492598 as SIM, one black colour used bag, one black colour Honda Sign motor cycle number- CG 07 AN 3312 (Engine-331/2 number JC36E7102617 chassis number ME4JC36JFC7068975) was seized. The property seized in the case, blade, bloodstained and plain soil from the crime scene, T-shirt, jeans full pants of the accused and jeans shirt pants, shirt and underpants of the deceased were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for chemical testing and an exhibit receipt was obtained and after testing, FSL report was received. 7. During the investigation, police statements of witnesses Kumar Jangde, Dujeram, Maniram Khunte, Vishram Khunte, Janakram Khunte, Sindhu Ratre, Kumari Manjeshwari Khunte, Budhram Jangde, Dharambai, Shatrughan Yadav, Dinesh Kumar Kurre, Sonu Chand Yadav, Benuram Khunte were recorded. The accused was arrested and his family was informed. After complete investigation, the final report was presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 8. After the charges were framed and read out to and explained to the accused Chavan Lal Khunte under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied having committed the offence and trial was sought. 6 9. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses in its support. A total of 36 documents have been produced by the prosecution, out of which exhibits P-34 and P-32 have been marked twice, while the defense has marked 05 documents of the prosecution (police statements) as exhibits D-1 to D-5. The deceased's Class V certificate has been marked as Article-1. 10. In the trial conducted under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that he is innocent and on the date of the alleged incident, he neither met the deceased Lucky alias Lakshendra Khunte nor did he kill the deceased Lucky alias Lakshendra Khunte. The accused had expressed to give defence evidence in his defence, but no defence witness has been called on his behalf. 11. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. Hence this appeal. 12. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent / accused from the aforesaid offence by recording a finding which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the complainant has specifically stated in his complaint Ex.P-1, that the message was received by him and father of the deceased regarding the abduction from the present respondent and the amount of ransom was demanded by the present respondent, where as it is admitted 7 by the learned Trial Court that, the message was sent from the accused mobile to the father of the deceased but the same was not considered as a reliable evidence in the present case as well as the mobile of the accused was seized the memo of seizure Ex.P-5 which is also overlooked by the learned Trial Court. He also submitted that the accused/respondent is the real uncle of the deceased and it is evident from the statement of PW-4 and PW-5 that they had last seen the deceased with the present respondent lastly on the date of incident and on the information of the present respondent, dead body of the deceased was recovered on 14/03/2021, which itself shows that the circumstances that has been formed with the statement of PW-4 and PW-5 that the deceased was last seen with present respondent, thereafter deceased become missing, but the learned Court erred in holding that the statement of prosecution witness cannot be relied just they had not made before any other person of the village, whereas they had made their statement with regard to the last seen of deceased with the present respondent under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which is overlooked by the learned Trail Court. It is further submitted that PW-12 (Dinesh Kumar Kurrey) has stated in his statement that he has last seen deceased along with present respondent for withdrawal of amount from Seva Kendra and after withdrawal of the amount they left from Seva Kendra. The learned Trial Court has overlooked that the present respondent went to the Seva Kendra for withdrawal of money and thereafter deceased get missing and has not been found and only on the information of the present respondent dead body of 8 the deceased was found. Therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set-aside. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant / State, considered his submission and gone through the records filed along with this petition. 14. In the entire case, the prosecution's case is mainly based on the evidence of the recovery of the dead body, seizure proceedings and the last time the accused and the deceased were seen together. But the evidence presented on record against the accused by the prosecution on the basis of the recovery of the dead body, seizure proceedings and the last seen theory is not sufficient to establish beyond doubt the circumstances of the accused committing the crime of murder. 15. It is not proved that the accused had sent messages to himself and Janak Ram (PW-3) from the mobile of the deceased because the messages were not seized and the seizure of the mobile of the deceased is also not proved. It is also not safe to consider it proved beyond doubt that the accused was last seen with the deceased within a significant period of time on the date of the incident because if Rath Jangde (PW-4) and Sindhu Ratre (PW-5) had seen the accused and the deceased together on 10/03/2021, then it was a natural circumstance that they would have informed the family of the deceased about it being residents of the same area and locality because the information about the missing of the deceased had also been issued in the entire area. It is not safe to rely on the police 9 statement of Sindhu Ratre and Rath Jangde recorded on 14/03/2021 after 10/03/2021 and the final report dated 15/03/2021, especially when Rath Jangde (PW-4) has also given a statement in paragraph 6 of the trial that if the police ask by keeping a knife on the neck, then one will have to tell the same." 16. Further, it cannot be considered proved beyond doubt that as mentioned in the application Ex.P-1 of Vishram Khunte (PW-2), on 10/03/2021, the deceased was seen talking face to face with accused in front of the house of the deceased because there is no judicial statement of Vishram Khunte (PW-2) to this effect. It also cannot be considered proved beyond doubt that the accused had come to the customer service centre of Dinesh Kurre (PW-12) along with the deceased because the CCTV footage, the basis of the evidence of Dinesh Kurre (PW-12), is not presented in the case and there is no statement of the witness on this point that the person who came with the accused was the deceased and importantly, the deposition of Dinesh Kurre at the time of arrival of the deceased and the accused at the customer service centre is completely contradictory to the facts collected in the investigation proceedings. It also cannot be considered proved that on the basis of the memorandum of the accused, the police recovered the body in front of witnesses on 14/03/2021 and seized blade, soil, disposal, liquor bottle from the crime scene and clothes, motorcycle, bag of the accused from the house of the accused. Mainly, no original Aadhar card of the accused has been presented in the case and on the basis of memorandum proceedings Ex.P-5, when all the seizure 10 proceedings were done on 14/03/2021 itself, then the basis of seizure of Aadhar card by re-inspecting the crime scene, which is an open place, two days later on 16/03/2021 is not clear. 17. It is established from the available evidence that the dead body of the deceased was recovered and kept in the mortuary and the next day in the morning the family members of the deceased and others were informed about the recovery of the dead body. The witnesses were informed about the confession of the crime by the accused and the seizure of blade, liquor bottle, disposable glass, soil from the crime scene but no seizure was made in front of the witnesses. 18. Apart from this, non-presentation of CDR, non-presentation of CCTV footage, non-presentation of any statement of Arvind Nirala, non- presentation of original Aadhar card have also been fundamental errors in the investigation proceedings. Desired intention and motive are also missing in the case. Hence, it has not been proved from the above evidence arrangement and investigation that the murder of deceased Lakshendra alias Lucky has been committed by the accused. Each link of the crime against the accused has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 19. Thus, on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution in support of its case and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution case is not being proved beyond doubt against the accused. Therefore, the sections under which the accused is being tried, the prosecution has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which creates grounds for doubting the prosecution’s case and it is well established principle of law that 11 the accused always gets the benefit of doubt and thus, giving the benefit of doubt, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent. 20. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the accused/respondent from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 21. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 22. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra