1 2025:CGHC:56732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 164 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Burgum, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Ratiram Kashyap, S/o Pardeshi Kashyap, Aged About 35 Years, Caste- Maadiya Adiwasi, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Turangur Patelpara, Police Station- Burgum, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For State/Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 21/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 15/12/2017, passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.69/2017, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.21 17:56:56 +0530 2 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the respondent on 03/07/2017 around 09:00 A.M. has committed the murder of his brother, namely, Sadhu Ram with the aid of axe, on account of land dispute. He was, thus, charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. It appears from perusal of an FIR (Ex.P/22), lodged by the wife of the deceased, namely, Kope Kashyap (PW-8), that on the said fateful day and time, her husband was sleeping, while she went to the Anganbadi Center for doing her job and, when she was going to the Anganbadi Center, the brother of her husband, the respondent herein, was moving around her house, while holding an axe and, it appears further from her alleged report that when she returned after half an hour, she has seen the door of her house was opened and her husband was lying on the bed and blood was oozing from his head and, upon seeing him as such, she shouted, owing to which, one Gonchi Kashyap, Mude Kashyap and Ramnath came and took her husband to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. It, thus, appears from her alleged report that the alleged incident was not seen by her as to who has assaulted her husband, but in her Court’s statement, it was, however, deposed that the accused, the brother of her husband, had come to her house in the morning around 09:00 A.M. with an axe and demanded money from her husband, which was refused by him and, she then went to the Anganbadi Center and, when she returned back around 10:00 A.M., has seen 3 the accused coming out from her house with bloodstained axe and thrown the same after its cleaning in the nearby bushes. The evidence of her, thus, not only appears to be exaggerated, but appears to have been made in order to implicate him, as the said material fact was not disclosed either in her alleged report (Ex.P/22), or in her statement (Ex.D/1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and even was not found to be revealed from her merg intimation (Ex.P/18). Her statement, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 4. That apart, the alleged weapon used for the commission of the alleged offence, was alleged to have been recovered from the respondent on 04/07/2017 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Jayman Singh (PW-4) and Kuma Ram (PW-5), based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/7), but both these witnesses have, however, stated in their evidence that the alleged weapon was not recovered from him in their presence and, infact was already in possession of the concerned police authorities. It is to be seen further that the alleged bloodstained weapon “axe” and clothes recovered from the respondent on 04/07/2017 vide Ex.P/9 and, the articles like “mat, gadda, lungi and pieces of floor” from the spot on 04/07/2017 vide Ex.P/10, were sent for the chemical examination and, the human blood was found to be depicted from those articles vide FSL report (Ex.P/26). 5. Though, the human blood was found as such on those 4 articles, but in absence of its blood grouping that it belongs to that of the deceased, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon such a report (Ex.P/26), in order to attribute the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has, therefore, 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. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Prashant