1 2025:CGHC:37203-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 128 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bandhan S/o Pandaru Nagwanshi Aged About 41 Years Occupation Agriculture, 2 - Dilbahal S/o Tejsai Aged About 37 Years Occupation Agriculture, Both are R/o Village Lalitpur, Thogrojam, Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.07.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.31 10:29:28 +0530 2 and propriety of the judgment dated 25.02.2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Sessions Trial No.76/2016, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 12.03.2016, a Merg intimation (Ex.P-17/A) was lodged by one Nageshwar Prasad, the Sarpanch of village Sarga, informing that one unknown body is lying under the Bridge of Kudapkhana Road and, based upon the alleged information, the identification of the alleged unknown dead body was identified by the father of the deceased, namely, Kimal Ram (PW-7) on 12.03.2016, vide Identification Panchanama (Ex.P-10), to be of his son- Dablu @ Kendra @ Rambhagat and, thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-19) was registered on 13.03.2016 based upon the merg enquiry against an unknown person with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No. 39/2016 and, during the course of investigation, a motorcycle (HF Delux), bearing registration No. CG 15 CV 5357, a mobile set and a lower with blood like stained, were recovered from respondent No.1- Bandhan on 13.03.2016, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-5), while blood like stained wooden Phari (Danda, weapon of offence) and blood like stained Jeans Pant was recovered from respondent No.2- Dilbahal, vide Ex.P-7, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-6) and the articles so recovered, were sent for chemical examination. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-11A and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Bhajagwali (PW-6) and cause of death vide his report (Ex.P-13) was opined to be syncope due 3 to rupture of lungs and, after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur against the respondents with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where, the charge under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC was framed against the respondents, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondents are 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, vis-a-vis, the recovery from the respondents vide Ex.P-9 and Ex. P-7, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting them, as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal, as passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 4 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC for the incident occurred on 08.03.2016, when the dead body of the deceased, namely, Dablu @ Kendra @ Rambhagat was recovered on 12.03.2016. According to the prosecution, a blood like stained lower was recovered from the respondent No.1- Bandhan vide seizure memo Ex. P-9, while blood like stained wooden Phari and a Jeans Pant was recovered from the respondent No.2- Dilbahal vide Ex.P-7, based upon their disclosure statements, marked as Exs. P-5 and P-6, respectively and, therefore, they are lilable to be punished for the commission of the alleged offence. 8. Although, a blood like stained lower was seized from the respondent No.1- Bandhan on 13.03.2016, while blood like stained wooden Phari and a Jeans Pant from the respondent No.2- Dilbahal, vide Ex.P-7 and, it appears that the blood like stained lower recovered from the respondent No.1- Bandhan, marked as Article “C” and blood like stained wooden Phari and Jeans Pant, recovered from the respondent No.2-Dilbahal, marked as Articles “D” and “E”, respectively, were sent for chemical examination, but according to the FSL report (Ex. P-24), no blood was, however, found on those articles. Apart from these materials, no evidence is available on record, by which, it could be said that the respondents are involved for the commission of the alleged crime. The prosecution has, thus, failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence, in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime and, the trial Court, has, therefore, not 5 committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the allege crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 9. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita