1 2025:CGHC:12821-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 127 of 2022 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Subal Kumar Choudhary @ Subi Babu S/o Late Satyanarayan Choudhary, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Patharlasa, Police Station Tetrkhuti, District Navrangpur (Orissa) 2 - Navin Jani S/o Mangru Jani Aged About 27 Years R/o. Narsinghguda, Police Station Tetarkhuti, District Navrsangpur (Orissa). 3 - Manoj Tiwari S/o Late Ramniwas Tiwari Aged About 49 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward, Near Mangal Bhawan, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jadupati Harijan @ Montu S/o Rupdhar Harijan, R/o Village Patharlasa, Police Station Tetlekuti, District Navrangpur (Orissa). 5 - Ramuram Nag S/o Mahadev Nag Aged About 27 Years Caste Dhurwa, R/o Village Korpal, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6 - Anil Jan @ Anil Thomas S/o Late Sushil Kumar Jan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3, 5 & 6 : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant, Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 as well as Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is being heard finally. 3. This appeal under Section 21(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (for short, the Act of 2008) filed by the appellant-State of Chhattisgarh, challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused vide judgment dated 21.09.2021 in Special Case No. 39/2019 by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offence), Bastar at Jagdalpur, was admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.02.2025, this Court had issued bailable warrant for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the appearance of the respondents today. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have caused their appearance and they have been identified by their respective counsel. 4. The respondents were charged for the offences under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 alleging that on 17.03.2019 at about 23:30hours, at Main Road, Bakayand across Forest Naka under Police Station-Nagarnar, they illegally kept in their possession ultra modern explosive codex wire, safety fuse (explosive rope), detonator under 3 suspicious circumstances with the intent to cause explosion or to endanger life or property. It was also alleged against all the respondents/accused under Section 38 (2), 39 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (for short, the UAPA) that on the said date, time and place, they committed the said offence being a member of banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) and were a part of the said banned terrorist organisation and committed the offence of furthering/encouraging the activities of Maoists. 5. According to the prosecution, on 17.03.2019, Sub Inspector Shishupal Sinha (PW-8) of Nagarnar Police Station received information from an informer that explosives were being transported from Odisha in a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. OD 24/9729 and a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. OD 10 F / 8126. On this, PW-8, along with staff and witnesses set up a camp at Forest Naka Bakawand and started checking the vehicles. At around 23:30 hours, the pickup and Bolero vehicles coming from Odisha were caught. When the pickup driver ran away after seeing the police force, the said vehicle was chased and caught. The person sitting in the said pickup vehicle number OD 24-9729 told his name as Naveen Jani and the name of the person who ran away leaving the vehicle was Lingo Jani. The accused in the Bolero vehicle were Subal Kumar Chaudhary, one juvenile in conflict with law and Manoj Tiwari. On searching both the vehicles, 03 bundles of codex wire, 10 bundles of safety fuse and 20 packets of detonators were found in the pickup vehicle. Similarly, during the search of the Bolero vehicle, 04 bundles of codex wire, 10 bundles of safety fuse and 25 packets of detonators were found. When no valid documents were produced regarding the said explosive material, the said explosive material was recovered and seized. Since one accused was a minor, his case was sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Jagdalpur. After registering the crime 4 against the respondents, during investigation, on the basis of the memorandum of accused Subal Choudhary, 03 bundles of codex wire, 10 safety fuses and 1400 pieces of detonators were seized from his residence. On the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Ramuram Nag, 10 bundles of safety fuses hidden in the house of Chaitram were seized and accused Ramuram, Nirmal Kumar Jhadi and Anil John were arrested. The seized explosives were duly destroyed by the BDS team. After destruction, the seized explosive soil and plain soil were sent for chemical testing. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Prosecution approval was obtained from the concerned. After completion of proper investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused before the Special Court on 29.07.2019. 6. Charges were framed against the accused/respondents-Subal Kumar Choudhary, Ramuram Nag and Navin Jani for the offences under Sections 4, 5 of the Act of 1908 and against all the accused/respondents for the offence under Sections 28(2), 29(2) of the UAPA. The respondents abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses namely Ramsing (PW1), Budru Kashyap (PW2), Shravan Kumar Baghel (PW3), Jagannath Manjhi (PW4), Dulbo Yadav (PW5), Auro Netam (PW6), Sukhram Sahu (PW7), Shishupal Sinha, Sub- Inspector (PW8), Dhanushdhari Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW9), Ratiram Kashyap (PW10), Yogendra Kumar Dhurv, constable (PW11), Santosh Nareti, constable (PW12), Nakul Kashyap, constable (PW13), Ramkumar Raote, constable (PW14), Sonadhar Baghel, constable (PW15). Bholaram Baghel, Constable, (PW16), Santuram Nag (PW17), Santosh Kumar Verma, NCO (PW18), Feroz Khan, Constable (PW19), Suresh Diwan, Constable (PW20), Lakheshwar Bisai (PW21), Dhanshyam Devgan, Patwari (PW22), Rajendra Pawar, Assistant Sub- 5 Inspector (PW23). Ms. Meena Yadav, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW24), Farsuram Yadav (PW25), Mahendra Bisai (PW 26), Mrs. Savita Uike (PW 27), Jhalku Ram Kadti, constable (PW 28), Chainuram Dhruv, constable (PW 29), Amit Dhidhi, head constable (PW 30), Hemsagar Sidar (PW 31) and exhibited as many as 41 exhibits. 8. The statement of the respondents/accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned trial Court wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. However, they did not produce any evidence in support of their case. 9. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused/respondents of the charges. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 10. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the accused persons. The trial Court was not justified in discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason for discarding the same. The gravity of the offence ought to have been borne in mind while acquitting the respondents/accused. PW-1, Ramsingh, PW-2, Budru Kashyap and PW-3, Shrawan Kumar Baghel had supported the case of the prosecution and explained the seizure, however, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law by acquitting the respondents of the charges. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani and Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents submit that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. As there was no reliable evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charges and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6 12. The learned trial Judge has dealt with the evidence of the prosecution in quite detail and it has arrived at a finding that the prosecution had successfully proved that the prosecution had obtained due approval from the competent authority for prosecution which this Court also concurs. However, the independent prosecution witness could identify the accused/respondents. The memorandum and the seizure of the explosive substances based on the said memorandum of the accused have also not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Some of the prosecution witnesses have even turned hostile. The independent witness namely Shrawan Kumar Baghel (PW-3) and Jagannath Manjhi (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution story and there was no material on record to hold that the accused/respondents belonged to the banned organization CPI(ML), People’s War Group or Naxali Dalam nor it could be proved that they have either actively participated or supported those banned organizations. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in acquitting the respondents of the charges. 14. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.19 11:17:26 +0530