1 2025:CGHC:4590-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2353 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baloda District Janjgir Champa, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus Aman Yadav @ Ashu S/o Narayan Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Pipernar, Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur, C.G. ...Respondent(s) For State/Appellant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.01 .2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State on I.A. No. 1 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.27 18:42:22 +0530 2 considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 470 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.01.2023 passed in Session Trial No. 06 of 2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the learned 1st Additional Session Judge has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) On 17.10.2021, at 8.40 p.m., Santosh Kumar Yadav, father of the complainant Gopichand Yadav, lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 435 of 2021 (Ex.P/2) at Baloda Police Station, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The report stated that a Ravana efÏgy burning and Gammat dance event was taking place in the village of Khisora. Around 8.00 p.m., a villager named Guharam Panika was driving his cows and calves from his field towards the school when his uncle, Umashankar, accused him of taking a calf and objected. A quarrel ensued, during which Umashankar tried to scare Guharam with a stick. Guharam snatched the stick from Umashankar, and the villagers Sunil Sahu and Dinesh Kenwat intervened to calm the situation. Thereafter, as the crowd dispersed, Umashankar was walking along the roadside when 3 an unknown person inflicted a deep wound on his abdomen with a sharp object, causing severe bleeding. Ajay Rathore, who was present at the scene, also sustained an injury to his hand. Some villagers called the emergency number 112, and the Police arrived at the scene and took Umashankar to CHC Baloda, where the Doctor declared him dead. Later, village witnesses identified the involvement of two boys from Pipramar (Sipat) village, Ashu Yadav and Goldy Yadav. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the respondent/accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondent/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2023, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trail Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution 4 evidence in its right prospective, particularly the testimony of the Anchal Yadav (PW-4), who stated in her deposition that the accused and his brother started arguing with her father. When they reached there, the accused and his brother had murdered her father with a knife, therefore, the learned trial Court also committed error of law in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions. Thus, 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. 6. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 22, 23 & 24 as follows: “22. Investigator V.N. Bhardwaj (PW-8) stated that during the investigation, he sent the seized knife, bloodstained soil, plain soil, clothes of the deceased and accused, and a leather belt to the FSL Bilaspur for chemical examination through Constable Shrikant Singh. The FSL report (Ex.P/18) revealed that blood was found on the seized soil, knife, belt, jeans pant and T-shirt of the accused, and jeans pant of the deceased. The blood group on the knife was ‘O’, but 5 there is no evidence to confirm whose blood group it matched. Hon’ble High Court in Puran vs. State of M.P. (now C.G.), 2004 (2) CJLJ 105 had held that where there is no evidence that articles were recovered from the accused. Blood group of accused and deceased not on record. In such a situation mere recovery of cloths stained with human blood is not conclusive against accused and he can not be convicted on such evidence. Therefore, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn against the accused based on the said blood group. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Varun Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2008, decided on 29.10.2010, that: “where there is no eye witness of where there is no scientific evidence to connect the accused with the offence, the prosecution ought to have established that there was some motive behind commission of offence of murder of deceased. In the instant case there is neither any eye witness nor any scientific evidence to connect the accused with the crime so, prosecution ought to have established the motive, but it failed. Non providing of motive is also a serious lacuna on part of prosecution”. The prosecution's eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution, making it clear that there are no 6 eyewitnesses in the case. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence available that suggests the accused committed the crime. In such a situation, it was the prosecution's responsibility to prove the motive behind the murder, but no such evidence exists in the case. 24. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused, Aman Yadav alias Ashu, son of Narayan Yadav, is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. If there are no other pending or ongoing cases against him, he is also acquitted of the charges under Section 34, Section 25, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The District Jail, Janjgir, should be immediately notified, and a note should also be made on the accused's warrant.” 8. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 9. 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:- 7 "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." 10. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan