1 2025:CGHC:30430-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2086 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Md. Riyaz Khan @ Chotu S/o Late Lal Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Kosanala, Supela, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramlal Meshram S/o Late Manu Meshram Aged About 25 Years R/o Kosanala, Supela, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Rocky Gurde @ Lacky Gurde S/o Late Ajay Gurde Aged About 22 Years R/o Kosanala, Supela, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Dayal Singh Soni S/o Late Vachan Singh Soni Aged About 32 Years R/o Kosanala, Supela, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Kailash Bagh @ Mama S/o Late Tirath Bagh Aged About 21 Years R/o Wps Colony, Raipur, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Naveen Das S/o Dilip Das Aged About 19 Years R/o Wps Colony, Raipur, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 12:01:14 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.07.2025 1. I.A. No. No. 01 of 2025, is an application for condonation of delay of 202 days in ling the instant petition for leave to appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in ling the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 3. By way of present petition led under Section 419(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned 4th District & Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 99/2018 by which, the respondents / accused have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 of the IPC. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the complainant/informant Bahadur Singh Bagh has given information before the Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg on 10.01.2018 at about 9.15 PM, an unknown person aged about 25-30 years was found lying dead in service road Kumhari, ahead of G.E. Road Charoda in front of GRP Chowki. On the basis of which, morgue intimation No. 04/2018 vide Ex.P. 35 was registered. During the morgue investigation, notice was given to the Panchas for preparing the 3 Panchnama of the dead body vide Ex.P. 32 and in the presence of the panchs, the map of the dead body of the deceased Rajkumar Sen was prepared Panchayatnama (Ex.P. 33). The written complaint was prepared for examination of the dead body and the dead body was sent for examination and the postmortem report vide (Ex.P. 01) was obtained. Since the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned in the postmortem report as shock and hemorrhage due to injuries in the vital organs of the body. The case was registered in Police Station Purani Bhilai under Crime No. 14/2018 under section 302, 201 of IPC (Ex.P.-36) and the case was taken into investigation, the site map of the incident was prepared (Ex.P-31). Thereafter, the Dehati Nalshi and Dehati Morgue intimation were recorded respectively and the matter was taken under investigation. The statements of the eye witness as well as other witnesses were recorded by the Police and subsequently the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the eye witness were also recorded before the learned JMFC, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.). After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. Thereafter, the charge under section 302/34, 201/34 of IPC was framed against the respondents/accused. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.08.2024 although convicted the respondent accused under section 302/34, 201/34 of I.P.C., however the learned trial Court acquitted the present 4 respondents/accused of the charge under section 302/34, 201/34 of I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous, unreasonable and contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned trial Court has failed to correctly appreciate the evidence available against the respondent / accused and has also failed to realize that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence available on record proving the commission of murder by the respondents/accused. The evidence tendered by the prosecution was clear and unambiguous proving the involvement of the present respondents in the commission of offence and there was no reason for the learned court below to doubt the credibility or reliability of the said evidence. The statement of Lalit Sen (PW-06) who has stated in her judicial statement he also came the incident place there was quarrel and scuffle with the accused regarding his brother's for sitting in vehicle on which during the said quarrel, accused/respondent Riyaz Khan hit his brother with a knife. It is also stated that all the accused present in the Court had told the police station that they together have killed his brother. The statement of Dr. A.K. Namdeo (PW-01) who has conducted the postmortem report vide Ex.P-01 and opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries in the vital organs of the body the injury sustained by the deceased could be of homicidal nature. Also, the reason given by the learned trial Court 5 for acquitting the present respondent is absolutely erroneous, flawed and perverse. The learned trial Court has failed to give any reasonable justification for acquitting the accused persons on the same set of evidence. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the State / appellant and perused the impugned judgment along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal. 8. Learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents / accused observing that there is no eyewitness in this case. This case is based on the statements of the witnesses of the memorandum and seizure, but the witnesses examined of the memorandum and seizure have not supported the prosecution. Similarly, the statements of other witnesses Amar Vishal Jojowar (PW-4), Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Durgesh Kumar (PW-9) have also been contradicted during cross-examination, whose evidence also does not support the prosecution story. Similarly, the younger brother of the deceased, Lalit Sen (PW-6) is not an eyewitness in the case, and is a hearsay witness, in whose main examination and cross-examination, important contradictions have emerged and the evidence of this witness has also been contradicted in cross-examination. It is also worth mentioning in the case that no attempt has been made in the investigation to collect evidence of the auto driver, who witnessed the argument and fight between the deceased Rajkumar Sen and the accused on the date of the 6 incident. In this way the circumstances preceding the incident can be revealed. The examination of this witness is also lacking in the case. Thus, there is no evidence available from the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the case regarding the involvement of the accused in the said crime. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. 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. 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." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits 7 the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. 12. A copy of the trial Court record has already been annexed with the petition along with memo of submission. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet