1 2025:CGHC:52098-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3195 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Narhari Rajwanshi S/o Sukdev Rajwanshi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Piproud Colony, Ward No. 05 Piproud, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Harishchandra Das S/o Gaurang Das Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Piproud Colony, Ward No. 05 Piproud, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Shrihari Rajwanshi S/o Sukdev Rajwanshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Piproud Colony, Ward No. 05 Piproud, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.27 17:27:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10 .2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/State. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry had already been cured. He further submits that through memo of submission dated 17.10.2025, the State is hereby filing the relevant exhibited documents, which have taken on record. Therefore, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 3. Also heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 04 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. 5. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19.06.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.67 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband has acquitted the respondents from the offences 3 punishable under Sections 294 and 303/24 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) The complainant, Santosh Kumar Sinha (PW-3) has lodged a report at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) to the effect that, he resides at Soridkhurd, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (CG). That, on 29.08.2021, at about 11.00 a.m., he alongwith his village friend Sandeep Chandrakar had gone to Narhari Rajwanshi in Borid Chowk. The Sandeep Chandrakar talking to Harhari Rajwanshi about the account of money transaction, meanwhile suddenly Narhari Rajwanshi started abusing Sandeep Chandrakar and saying that you asking for the account, and asked his son Rahul Rajwanshi, Nephew Harischandra and brother Shrihari Rajwanshi to kill Sandeep Chandrakar, on hearing which all the three together attacked with bamboo sticks and iron rods with the intention of killing him. The deceased Sandeep Chandrakar suffered serious injuries on his head, both hands and other parts due to the assault. Thereafter, complainant has lodged a written report at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband at Zero for the offence under Sections 294, 302/34 of the IPC against the accused respondents, thereafter, a Dehati Nalisi vide Ex.P/5 has been registered and sent to Police Station 4 Fingeshwar where, a Crime No. 191/2021 has been registered vide Ex.P/31. Thereafter, the matter was taken into investigation and the Nazri Naksha of the spot was prepared and the postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the statements of the witnesses were duly recorded. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and the respondents/accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 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 offences charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences charged, by unjustifiably discarding the evidence of the complainant without assigning any cogent or substantial reason. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of Santosh Kumar (PW-3), who is an eyewitness to the incident. Santosh Kumar 5 has categorically stated that on 29.08.2021, at about 11:00 a.m., he, along with his friend Sandeep Chandrakar, went to meet Narhari Rajwanshi at Borid Chowk. During their conversation regarding a money transaction, Narhari Rajwanshi suddenly started abusing Sandeep Chandrakar and questioned him for demanding the account details. Thereafter, he allegedly instigated his son Rahul Rajwanshi, nephew Harischandra, and brother Shrihari Rajwanshi to kill Sandeep Chandrakar. Acting upon this exhortation, all three allegedly attacked Sandeep Chandrakar with bamboo sticks and iron rods, with the intention to kill him. He further submits that the statement of this witness clearly establishes the culpability of the accused in committing the alleged offence. However, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in law by disbelieving the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused solely on the basis of minor omissions and contradictions, which do not go to the root of the matter. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is thus perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 8. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed in paragraphs 81 to 84 and 88 & 89 as follows: “81. Complainant Santosh Kumar has also stated that 6 when he reached Fingeshwar Police Station from the hospital, the accused persons — Narhari, Rahul, and Harishchandra — were sitting in the police station. However, the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, has denied that when he brought Santosh Kumar to Fingeshwar Police Station, the said accused persons were present there. Complainant Santosh Kumar mentioned in his preliminary report (Ex.P/4) that the incident occurred at 11:00 a.m., while witnesses Manish Vidani (PW-8) and Anil Kumar Chandrakar (PW-10) stated that the incident occurred at 2:00 p.m. Complainant Santosh Kumar (PW-3) stated that the preliminary report and the preliminary death intimation were recorded at Fingeshwar Police Station, whereas the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, stated that the same were recorded at Borid Chowk, Fingeshwar. Furthermore, in the preliminary report (Ex.P/4) and the preliminary death intimation (Ex.P/5), it is mentioned that they were recorded at the Community Health Center (CHC), which contradicts both of their statements. Thus, the statements of the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, and witness Santosh Kumar (PW-3), as well as the documents Exs.P/4 and P/5, are inconsistent regarding the place where these were recorded. Neither the investigating officer nor the complainant provided any explanation for this contradiction. Therefore, Santosh Kumar’s statement is inconsistent with his earlier police statement (Ex.D/2) and the preliminary report (Ex.P/4), and since the investigating officer did not support his version, Santosh Kumar’s statement appears doubtful and 7 unreliable. 82. Complainant Santosh Kumar also stated that before the incident, he used to work as an accountant at the fish farm owned by the deceased, Sandeep Chandrakar. Because of his employment, he had familial relations with the deceased’s family, which indicates that Santosh Kumar is an interested witness. He further stated that during his tenure as an accountant with the deceased, there had never been any dispute between the deceased and the accused persons regarding business transactions. The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, also admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence regarding business dealings between the deceased and the accused persons. Hence, under these circumstances, the testimony of witness Santosh Kumar appears contradictory and doubtful, and therefore unreliable. 83. The deceased’s brother, Manish Chandrakar (PW- 4), claimed to have witnessed the incident and stated that accused Shrihari struck the deceased with an iron rod. However, Santosh Kumar (PW-3) stated that he informed the deceased’s brother, Manish Chandrakar, about the incident over the phone, after which Manish arrived at the scene. By that time, the accused persons had already left. Witness Manish Chandrakar (PW-4) also admitted during cross-examination that on 29/08/2021, Santosh Kumar Sinha informed him about the incident involving his brother over the phone. This confirms that Manish Chandrakar was not present at the scene when the incident occurred and that the accused persons had already left before he 8 arrived. Furthermore, Santosh Kumar stated that Shrihari attacked the deceased with a stick, while Manish Chandrakar claimed it was an iron rod. These statements contradict each other, and since no iron rod was seized during the investigation, the testimony of Manish Chandrakar is inconsistent and doubtful, rendering it unreliable. 84. Manish Chandrakar (PW-4) further stated that during his police statement, he only mentioned that he was informed about the incident over the phone by Santosh Sinha. In his police statement (Ex.D/3), he did not say that “accused Narhari instructed the other accused persons to assault the deceased, after which they began beating him with bamboo sticks and iron rods; accused Shrihari struck the deceased with an iron rod, causing his head to split open. The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, also testified during cross-examination that Manish Chandrakar did not mention these details during his statement (Ex.D/3). The officer further stated that if Manish had mentioned them, he would have definitely recorded them. Therefore, Manish Chandrakar’s testimony appears doubtful and unreliable. XXX XXX XXX 88. The seizure and memorandum proceedings in this case appear suspicious. It is also noteworthy that the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bhushan Chandrakar, stated in his cross-examination that on 29/08/2021 at 11:30 a.m., he received information that an incident had occurred at Borid Chowk. A hospital memo regarding the death of the deceased, Sandeep 9 Chandrakar, was received from CHC Fingeshwar, based on which he went to the scene for verification. However, the hospital memo from CHC Fingeshwar was never submitted in the case record. He further stated that on 29/08/2021, after returning from the scene at 2:20 p.m., he recorded the return entry in the station diary. However, the station diary entry No. 19/29.08.2021 does not mention finding any iron triangular plate at the scene. He recorded entry No. 19 at 2:30 p.m. and thereafter registered the actual FIR at 2:50 p.m. (Crime No. 191/2021). The seizure memo (Ex.P/15), however, shows that Crime No. 191/2021 was already mentioned at 1:50 p.m., i.e., before the crime was officially registered. During cross- examination, he admitted that according to the station diary (Ex.P/38), he had only seized blood-stained and plain cement-sand dust from the scene and nothing else. This makes the seizure procedure doubtful. Thus, both the seizure and memorandum proceedings appear suspicious, casting doubt on whether the accused persons actually gave memorandum statements and whether the stick, motorcycle, clothes, and the iron triangular plate were genuinely seized from them. 89. The ‘C’ ‘D’ article submitted as evidence in this case is also inadmissible. The items sent by Fingeshwar Police Station to Dr. Aditya Chopra for forensic opinion were not sealed. The police communication sent to the doctor did not include any question as to whether the seized bamboo stick and iron plate could have been used to cause the death of Sandeep Chandrakar. Therefore, in his report (Ex.P/22), Dr. Aditya Chopra did not provide any 10 opinion stating that the injuries or death of Sandeep Chandrakar could have been caused by the items (Exs.P/22 and Articles 01 to 05) sent to him. Although blood group “B” was found on the seized iron plate (Exhibit C) and the deceased’s jeans (Exhibit F-2), it was not conclusively proven that the iron plate and stick were seized from the accused persons. Hence, their direct connection to the accused remains unestablished. In conclusion, based on the above facts and the investigation, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, by using obscene language and provoking the deceased Sandeep Chandrakar, formed a common intention to murder him and caused his death by assaulting him with bamboo sticks and an iron plate.” 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 11. 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:- “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. 11 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.” 12. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan