1 2025:CGHC:50000-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.99 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Vinod @ Lalu S/o Budhram Sahu Aged About 25 Years 2. - Manoj S/o Budhram Sahu, aged about 41 years, 3. - Murli Manohar S/o Mangturam Sahu, aged about 36 years, All R/o Village Khurdur, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the Complainant For Respondent(s) : None DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 08/10/2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) 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 05.01.2021, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.05/2019, whereby, the respondent No.1-Vinod @ Lalu has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 read SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.10.09 11:36:30 +0530 2 with Section120-B and 201 of IPC, while respondent No.2-Manoj and respondent No.3-Murli Manohar under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 3) Vide order dated 31.03.2021, leave to appeal against the impugned judgment has been granted only against respondent No.1-Vinod @ Lalu. 4) It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondent No.1-Vinod @ Lalu was charge-sheeted, along with others, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 201 of IPC on the allegations that he and others have joined hands and hatched conspiracy to kill the deceased-Baliram Sahu and consequent upon the alleged conspiracy, they have committed the murder of said Baliram Sahu on 21.09.2018. It is alleged further by the prosecution that the deceased-Baliram Sahu was the Panch of the Gram Panchayat Khurdur for the period from year 2010 to 2015 and during this period, as per the directions issued by the Revenue Authorities, the house made by Manoj Sahu, the real brother of the respondent-Vinod @ Lalu, over the government land was removed by him, owing to which, the said respondent and others have grudge against him and, on account of which, the respondent and others have committed the murder of him with the aid of stone and stepney pana, which was recovered from the respondent-Vinod @ Lalu vide Ex.P-11 on 23.09.2018, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-10) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Vishnu Das and Govind Yadav and, the clothes as well as the mobile phone owned by him (Vinod @ Lalu) were also recovered on the same day vide Ex.P-12 and sent for 3 the chemical examination, where human blood was found on the clothes recovered from him, as revealed from the FSL Report (Ex.P- 32). The respondent and others have, thus, been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove, who have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime by virtue of the impugned judgment and, vide order dated 31.03.2021, leave to appeal has been granted only against the respondent no.1-Vinod @ Lalu. 5) From perusal of the record, it appears that Dhaniram Sahu, the brother of the deceased-Baliram Sahu, who lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P- 6) on 22.09.2018, was examined as PW-2 and according to his testimony, it appears that Baliram Sahu, who was the Panch of Gram Panchayat Khurdur, has removed the encroachment made by the respondent’s brother-Manoj Sahu, as per the directions issued by the Revenue Authorities and it reveals further from his testimony that because of the alleged act of him (deceased), the respondent and others have a grudge against him. Although, it was stated by him as such, but from a bare perusal of his testimony, particularly paragraph 34, it appears that the alleged allegations were leveled by him only on the basis of suspicion and, similar is the fact revealed from the testimony of Rishi Kumar Jaiswal (PW-4). It reveals further from their testimonies, that the alleged removal was made 9 to 10 years prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident. 6) That apart, it was also revealed from their testimonies that, the shop of said Manoj Sahu, brother of the respondent-Vinod @ Lalu, was burnt few months prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident and they have suspicion that the shop of him was burnt by the deceased- 4 Baliram Sahu. Although, it was stated as such, but the alleged incident was found to be occurred much prior to the occurrence of the alleged incident, which took place on 21.09.2018 and, even otherwise, no report as such was placed on record in order to show that the alleged shop of respondent’s (Vinod @ Lalu) brother, namely, Manoj Sahu was burnt by the deceased-Baliram Sahu. It, thus, appears that merely on the basis of suspicion, the alleged allegations were leveled against the respondents. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution attributing the respondent (Vinod @ Lalu) for the commission of the alleged crime. 7) In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge Tumane