1 2025:CGHC:29325-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 52 of 2014 Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Bhojram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Hasued, P.S. Jaijaipur, Tahsil Sakti, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir- Champa (CG). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO Jaijaipur, Tahsil & District, Janjgir Champa (CG), 2 - Manohar Lal Sahu S/o Mangal Chand Sahu, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Hasued, P.S. Jaijaipur, Tahsil Sakti, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir- Champa (CG). ---- Respondents For Appellant :Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, P.L. For Respondent No.2 :Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased, namely, Savitri Bai under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 10/01/2014, passed by the 2nd SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.02 12:29:46 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.213//2012, whereby, the respondent No.2-Manohar Lal Sahu, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 03/08/2012, at about 6:00 pm, respondent No.2/accused assaulted his real brother, namely, Bhojram with the aid of ‘Spade’ (Fawda) and, thereafter strangulated his neck in order to cause his death near Dagania Talab at village Hasoud. It is alleged further that in order to eliminate the evidence, he concealed the body of his said brother along with his umbrella and stick while throwing it into the Well of one Bhushan Lal. It is alleged further that initially on 04/08/2012, a missing report (Ex.P- 23/C) was lodged by the deceased’s another brother, namely, Rameshwar Sahu at Chowki of Hasoud Police Station, stating therein, that on the previous day, i.e. 03/08/2012, his brother had gone to his field, but did not return and, therefore, he along with others’ have searched him, but he did not get any of his whereabouts. It appears further that during the inquiry of the said missing report (Ex.P-23/C), an FIR (Ex.P-30 and P-31) was lodged by the accused himself before the Police Station, Jaijaipur informing that he assaulted his brother with the aid of spade and thereafter, strangulated him and has thrown his body into the Well of one Bhushan Lal along with his umbrella and stick. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-17 and was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Saroj Kacchap (PW-22), who vide her report (Ex.P-24) opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock which occurred due to injury over his scalp. During the course of 3 investigation, a spade without blood, full shirt and Gamchha owned by the accused with bloodstained was recovered vide Ex.P-11 on 08/08/2012, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) and, a stick of the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P-12 on the same day, based upon said disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) and were sent for their chemical examination, but no report has, however, been placed on record. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur against the said respondent in connection with Crime No.176/2012 with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, and 201 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge mentioned herein-above has been framed, 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 27 witnesses and has exhibited 35 documents, while two witnesses were examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, held that the respondent- Manohar Lal Sahu is not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the widow of the deceased has preferred the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the 4 prosecution, particularly the statement of father- Mangal Chand (PW-6) and brother, namely, Jeeval Lal (PW-2) of the deceased, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him, as such. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State has supported the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant, while learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 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 respondent No.2-Manohar Lal Sahu has been charge-sheeted with regard to the murder of his real brother, namely, Bhojram Sahu on account of the incident occurred in the month of August, 2012 and he himself lodged the report (Ex.P-30 and P-31) while confessing the murder of his brother. In order to establish the alleged allegation that the said respondent has committed the murder of his brother, namely, Bhojram Sahu with the aid of spade, one Gopal (PW-1) was examined, who stated in his evidence that on the said day, he has seen the accused holding a stick but, has stated specifically at paragraph 3 that on the said day, he has not seen that he was holding the spade, alleged to have been recovered on 08/08/2012 vide Ex.P-11 based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P-7) of the said respondent. 9. Jeevan Lal (PW-2), who is well known to the respondent as well as his 5 deceased- brother, stated that he, in fact, received the information that Bhojram was killed by his brother, namely, Manohar Lal Sahu, the respondent No.2 herein and has thrown his body into the Well of one Bhushan Lal and stated further that he came to know that the alleged incident has happened because of some dispute occurred in their field. 10. Bhushan Lal (PW-3) has, though, stated that he was informed by the said respondent that he thrown the body of his brother into his Well after committing the murder of him, but the said fact was, however, not found to be revealed from his statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 11. Rameshwar @ Khirlal (PW-4), who is the real brother of the deceased - Bhojram, has stated that his brother- Manohar, the respondent No.2 herein, has stated in presence of others’ as well as in front of the Police that he caused the death of his brother- Bhojram with the aid of ‘Rapa’ while assaulting him on his head and thereafter by strangulating him. 12. Mangal Chand (PW-6) is the father of the deceased and according to him, as revealed from paragraph 3 of his testimony, that in Police Chowki Hasoud, his son- Manohar confessed that he caused the death of his brother- Bhojram and it, however, reveals from paragraph 7 of his testimony that at that particular time, the respondent- Manohar was already there in the Police Chowki, Hasoud. The statements of others’ are formal in nature. 13. What is, therefore, reflected from the evidence led by the prosecution that though, they have stated that the respondent No.2 has confessed the commission of the murder of his brother, but the said fact was, however, found to be made in presence of the police, therefore, the 6 evidence of theirs’ cannot be relied upon. That apart, it appears from their testimonies that after assaulting the deceased with the aid of spade, the said respondent has strangulated the neck of his deceased brother- Bhojram, but the said fact was, however, not found to be corroborated by the statement of Dr. Saroj Kacchap (PW-22) as no injury as such was found on his neck, as alleged by them. In such circumstances and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it is difficult to hold that the respondent No.2- Manohar Lal Sahu was involved in connection with the alleged crime and the trial Court, has therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 14. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita