1 2025:CGHC:52130-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 59 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Incharge, Police Station Shyang, District- Korba (CG) ... Appellant versus Shivnath Manjhwar S/o Late Dinesh Ram Manjhwar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village- Chirhut, Police Station Shyang, District- Korba (CG) ---- Respondent ____________________________________________________________________ For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 27.10.2025 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 26.04.2017, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Korba (CG) in Sessions Trial No.66/2016, whereby, the respondent- Shivnath Manjhwar, who was SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.10.28 13:12:41 +0530 2 the nephew of the deceased- Tel Singh Manjhwar, has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, a Merg Intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by one Ramkumar, son of the deceased- Tel Singh, on 08.05.2016 before the Police Station- Shyang of District Korba, alleging therein, that his father was assaulted by his cousin- Shivnath Manjhwar, the respondent herein, who is the son of his elder father, with the aid of axe on the backside of his head, owing to some land dispute. It is alleged further that on account of the alleged assault, his father has sustained grievous injuries on his head and blood was oozing and the same was seen by him as well as by his neighbour, namely, Santram and, based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the said respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, during the course of investigation, an axe with bloodstained was recovered from him in presence of two witnesses, namely, Suresh Kumar and Majnu, on 08.05.2016 based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-9) and, soil and the clothes wore by the deceased was recovered vide Ex.P-11 and the articles, so recovered, were sent for chemical examination and according to the FSL report (Ex.P-27), human blood was found to be detected from the alleged weapon “axe”, but no group of human origin was ascertained because of its disintegration. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. T. Singh (PW-9), who vide his report (Ex.P-18), opined the cause of death was because of excessive blood loss. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial 3 Magistrate, Korba, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the son of the deceased, namely, Ramkumar, held that the respondent was not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above 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 respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the son of the deceased as well as the neighbour of him, namely, Santram, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent, as such. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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. 4 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident occurred in the intervening night of 7th and 8th May, 2016, the respondent, who is the nephew of the deceased, was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and, the First Information Report (Ex.P-2) was registered based upon the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-1) given by the deceased’s son, namely, Ramkumar. According to the Merg Intimation, it appears that the alleged incident was seen by said Ramkumar, the son of the deceased as well as by his neighbour, namely, Santram that his father was assaulted by the respondent on his head with the aid of axe. 8. Ramkumar, the son of the deceased, was examined as PW-1, but, from perusal of his statement, it appears that he was, in fact, not aware that who has assaulted his father and has denied the fact that his mother and said Santram have reached the spot. Further of his testimony would show that, he informed the villagers that his father was assaulted by the respondent and on the next day, i.e. 08.05.2016, he reported the occurrence of the alleged incident to the concerned Police Station. It, however, appears from his cross-examination, particularly paragraph 11 that, he has not seen as to how his father has fell down and because of that he was not aware how the alleged injury was sustained by his father on his head and, it reveals further from paragraph 12 of his testimony that, he has not informed to the concerned Police that his father was assaulted by his cousin, the respondent herein and, stated suo motu that because of suspicion, he has disclosed the name of his cousin that he assaulted his father. 9. Although, it was stated by him in his Merg Intimation (Ex.P-1) that the 5 alleged incident was seen by his neighbour, namely, Santram, but said Santram, who was examined as PW-3, has, however, turned hostile without supporting the alleged version of him. Even otherwise, the evidence of these witnesses, who alleged to have been stated to be the eye-witnesses with regard to the occurrence of the alleged incident, but their testimonies were even not found to be supported by the corroborative piece of evidence, as the “axe” alleged to have been recovered from the respondent, on 08.05.2016 was not found to be proved by its attesting witness, namely, Suresh Kumar (PW-4), nor even, the measurement of the alleged weapon “axe” was found to be the same, as revealed from the seizure memo (Ex.P-10) as well as the query report (Ex.P-20) of it, made by Dr. T. Singh (PW-9). 10. In view of the aforesaid background, it, thus, appears that no cogent and reliable evidence has been led by the prosecution attributing the respondent for the commission of the allege crime and, the trial Court, after taking note of these materials, has not erred in acquitting the respondent for 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/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE sunita