1 2025:CGHC:47184-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 368 of 2025 • Shankar Rao S/o Late R. Krishna Rao, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Siddharth Town Bhilai-3, Police Station Bhilai-3 District Durg (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul, District Durg (C.G.). 2. Sanjay Tiwari S/o Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Block-9 E/98, ACC Colony, Jamul P.S. Jamul District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/ State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/09/2025 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.186/2024, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.16 18:07:19 +0530 2 accused/Respondent No.2-Sanjay Tiwari from the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that vide Hospital's memo (Ex.P- 25), an information was given to the Police Station Supela, Bhilai that one R.Balraju was brought dead having sustained injuries on several parts of the body and was declared dead on 03/06/2024 at 10:07 AM. Based upon such an information, a zero FIR was registered and later on converted into an original FIR (Ex.P-14). Based upon the said information, merg inquiry was conducted and thereafter statement of Panch witnesses were recorded and it was found that R.Balraju has succumbed to death on account of grave injuries. During the course of investigation, it was found that the death was caused on account of grave injuries inflicted by an unknown person, leading to the registration of an FIR (Ex.P-14) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, proceedings for recovery from the place of incident was conducted and statement of witnesses were recorded, which pointed out involvement of the Respondent No.2-accused in the commission of offence of murder of R. Balraju, consequently, he was arrested. After completion of usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the competent Court against the Respondent No.2/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused/Respondent No.2 under Section 302 of IPC and after 3 appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.02.2025, has acquitted the Respondent No.2/accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the Appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further submits that learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the Respondent No.2/accused from the offence charged. Learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the medical evidence available on record and without proper appreciation of medical evidence, the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in acquitting the Respondent No.2. He further submits that the learned trial court has ignored the memorandum statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to recovery of weapon of offence as also blood stained jeans and shirt of the accused from the place of incident. He also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the FSL report, which confirmed the blood 4 stains on the seized articles. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances with regard to the altercation took place between the accused- Respondent No.2 and the deceased, presence of accused and recovery of incriminating articles from the place of incident. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused/Respondent No.2 deserves to be convicted for aforementioned offence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1/State supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned trial Court, while considering the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused/Respondent No.2, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. The Respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, as recovery of weapon of offence (Hammer) on the basis of the memorandum statement (Ex.P-5) of the accused-Respondent No.2, itself is doubtful, because Investigating Officer, Keshav Koshale (PW-9) has admitted in his cross-examination that the Hammer was seized from an open place. Even Dr. Abhishek Shrivastava (PW-8), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, has not clearly stated in his evidence with regard to weapon used in the commission of offence. In addition, there is no 5 circumstantial evidence, which prima-facie connects the accused/ Respondent No.2 with the commission of offence of murder. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances with regard to altercation took place between the accused-Respondent No.2 and the deceased, presence of accused at the spot as also the recovery of incriminating articles from the place of incident, which gave benefit of doubt to the accused-Respondent No.2 for the commission of offence of murder. 8. 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." 9. Recently in the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-25 as under: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. the 6 Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 10. As the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Kistoora Ram (supra), Jafarudheen (supra), an appellate Court should interfere with an acquittal only if the trial Court's judgment is perverse, clearly illegal, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the trial Court's findings are reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 11. In this case, no eyewitness has been examined by the prosecution, and there is no circumstantial evidence, which would establish beyond reasonable doubt the accused's involvement in the death of the deceased, R. Balraju. Furthermore, the evidence led by the prosecution does not form a chain that would lead to a conclusion that the respondent No.2/accused committed the offence. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, giving the benefit of 7 doubt to the accused-Sanjay Tiwari, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. In the present case, the trial Court has duly considered all material aspects, including inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, doubtful recovery, and non- corroborative medical opinion and given detailed and cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. 12. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the Respondent No.2/accused from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call of any interference in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Tumane