1 2025:CGHC:11755-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No 156 of 2015 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bhagwandeen Sonwani S/o Ganesh Lal Sonwani, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Dewraj Para Sadhwani, Police Station Gourela, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)/State : Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha appears along with Smt. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocates DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 10/03/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27/01/2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.91/2013, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 2) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 13.07.2013, the merg intimation (Ex.P-11) was lodged by one Hari Singh Chauhan, stating therein, that on the said day, he was coming by the Truck/ Trailer (bearing Registration No.CG.04/JA/1353) along with the deceased-Bablu @ Bayu Ram and the respondent-Bhagwandeen and when they reached near the Village Kewati, the deceased and the respondent after consuming liquor started quarreling with each other, therefore, he intervened the same and, thereafter, they again proceeded further and during en-route, wire of the battery of the vehicle got burnt, therefore, they stayed and slept over there. It is stated further that when he got up in the morning around 3.30 to 04 AM, he called the respondent-Bhagwandeen, but, he has gone somewhere else, while nothing was replied by the deceased and when he came near him, he found him dead and had seen certain signs of nail abrasions on his neck and has raised a doubt that the deceased was killed by the respondent-Bhagwandeen, while throttling his neck. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-12) was registered on the same day, in connection with Crime No.102/2013 against the respondent-Bhagwandeen for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-3 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Dhruw (PW-4), who vide his report (Ex.P-6) opined the cause of death to be Asphyxia due to blocked air passage leading to Cardio-pulmonary arrest and accordingly, opined the cause of death to be homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, the Truck/Trailer (bearing Registration No.CG.04/ 3 JA/1353) was recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-16 and a broken chain owned by the accused was recovered from the spot on 13.07.2013 vide Ex.P-15 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Hari Singh and Hemendra Kumar and thereafter on 17.07.2013, Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Permit of the alleged vehicle alongwith the Insurance Policy and the Driving License of the Complainant-Hari Singh Chauhan was recovered vide Ex.P-7 and after completing the usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, for its trial, where the charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 302 IPC and the charge, so framed, was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused person, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, while none was examined by the respondent-accused in his defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of Lallu Ram (PW-6), before whom, the extra-judicial-confession was made by the respondent and the statement of the Complainant-Hari Singh Chauhan (PW-13), who lodged the merg intimation, held that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been acquitted 4 from the commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondent was not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of Lallu Ram (PW-6), before whom, the extra-judicial-confession was made by the respondent and the statement of Hari Singh Chauhan (PW-13), who lodged the merg intimation, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned 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 the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. According to the prosecution, a merg intimation was lodged by one Hari Singh Chauhan (PW-13), wherein it has been stated by him that on the fateful day, i.e. in the intervening night of 12th and 13th July, 2013, he was coming by the alleged Truck/Trailer along with the deceased and the respondent and on the way, when wire of the battery was got burnt, they slept there and in the morning around 5 03.30 to 4 AM, when he got up and called the respondent, but, he was not there and has gone somewhere else, while no response was given by the deceased-Bablu and when he reached near him, he was found to be dead and some abrasions of nail, were depicted from his neck and, stated further that he was murdered by the respondent. In order to establish the alleged fact, one Lallu Ram (PW-6), before whom, confession was made by the respondent, was examined. It, however, appears from his testimony that the respondent, who was sleeping outside of his house, on being asked, in the morning informed him that he has committed the murder of one driver and, in cross-examination at para-4, it was stated that he received the said information from the police authorities that the respondent has committed the alleged murder and deposed further suo-moto that he received the said information from the accused that he has committed the said murder. His statement, thus, found to be shaky in this regard and, even has failed to mention the name of the deceased-Bablu @ Bayu Ram that he has committed the murder of him. That apart, it reveals from para-7 of his testimony that when he asked from the concerned police, then only, he was informed that the deceased was murdered while throttling of his neck. In view of such kind of his evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent had confessed before him voluntarily the commission of the alleged crime, as it is the settled principle of law that the extra-judicial- confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless and until, the same is corroborated by the cogent and reliable evidence, the same cannot be taken into consideration, while convicting the respondent 6 with regard to the alleged offence. At this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, is to be seen, where it has been held at paragraph 10 as under ;- “10. An extrajudicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it losses its importance. The courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extrajudicial confession.” 9) In so far as the statement of Hari Singh Chauhan (PW-13) is concerned, though, it was stated by him that the deceased and the respondent, after consuming liquor, had quarreled with each other, but, he has, however, denied the said fact, in his cross-examination. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 10) In view of above, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-SD/-D//- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane