1 2025:CGHC:30428-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2069 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kejha Ram Sahu S/o Hori Lal Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And District Mungeli C.G. 2 - Ravindra Sahu S/o Kejha Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And District Mungeli C.G. 3 - Kaliram Sahu S/o Kejha Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And District Mungeli C.G. 4 - Hori Lal Sahu S/o Late Latel Sahu Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And District Mungeli C.G. 5 - Rohini Sahu W/o Kejha Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And District Mungeli C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant/State : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.04 17:41:51 +0530 2 4 .7.2025 1. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 268 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.6.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.88/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Kejha Ram Sahu and 04 others) by the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 from the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 of the IPC and respondent No.3 from offence punishable under Sections 114/302, 115 of the IPC in connection with Crime No.421/2021 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Balaram Sahu had taken an insurance policy through Kaliram Sahu and Kejharam Sahu, agents of Pulsegreen Insurance Company, after the completion of the period of which the insurance amount was not received, then the deceased went to Kejharam's house on 19.07.2021 to ask for the money, upon which the deceased was called inside his house and alongwith his family members, beat him and thinking him to be dead, threw him outside his house. When Janaki Bai, who lives in the neighborhood, came to know about this, she informed the family members of the deceased and got him first aid done. The son of the deceased went to Bhatgaon with Komal Sahu and Ramavatar Sahu where the deceased was lying in Kaliram's house. The deceased had 3 injuries on his head and chest and his lower part had became numb and stopped working. He was brought to District Hospital, Mungeli on a motorcycle from where he was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The deceased had told his son that the accused/respondents had beaten him with Tangia's dice, Lathi, Danda in the name of insurance money. Thereafter he shifted from CIMS, Bilaspur to Mekahara, Raipur where he died during treatment. This information has been given by Ajay Kumar Kurrey, Ward Boy of the said Hospital regarding the death of the deceased. 4. The hospital memo was presented at Golbazar Police Station, Raipur on which registered the inquest at zero, registered inquest No. 651/2021 vide Ex.P-18 and got the post-mortem of the dead body done at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur vide Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-17. The map of the dead body was prepared in Panchnama vide Ex.P-15, Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli registered inquest No. 56/2021 vide Ex.P-22 and registered the F.I.R. in Crime No. 421/2021 and took the case into investigation. The accused/respondents were taken into custody and interrogated, and memorandum statements of their statements vide Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 were prepared respectively. The items used in the incident were seized in front of witnesses and when the accused/respondents confessed to the crime, they were arrested and sent to judicial remand. After completing the investigation, the final charge sheet was submitted before the trial court. 5. Charge against respondents No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 for offence 4 punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 of IPC and respondent No. 3 for offence punishable under Sections 114/302, 115 of the IPC was framed against the respondents/accused. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. Despite the fact that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence available on record against the respondents/accused, without appreciating the same, learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.06.2024 has acquitted the respondents. Hence, this leave to appeal. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the applicant/State submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to the settled principals of law and the evidence available on the records. The evidence brought on record clearly pointed towards the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the murder of the deceased. He further submits that as per the statement of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-9) has opined that all the injuries sustained by the deceased were antemortem and had ecchymosis of dark red colour. The said injuries were caused by the hard and blunt object. The final opinion is based on the documents of his treatment in the hospital and the police report. It would be possible to tell if circumstantial evidence is brought by the witness that the period of death was within 24 hours of conducting the postmortem report given by the doctor vide Ex.P-17. He also submits that Harishchand Sahu (PW-2) (father of the deceased) and Lacchan Bai (PW-3) (wife of the deceased) have clearly stated in their deposition that due to the dispute of insurance money the respondents have murdered the deceased. 5 7. He contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the information about the incident was given to the son of the deceased Dinesh Sahu, who was not called as a witness in the case, which does not show the reliability of the said statement of Harishchandra (PW-2) to be of authentic nature. The relatives of deceased Janaki Bai, Nirmala Bai, Chhedi Lal and Gammati Sahu did not give information about the incident to the some or wife of the deceased which is also beyond comprehension. He further contended that evidence collected by the prosecution proves the motive as well as strong circumstantial evidence that the deceased was murdered by the accused. Learned trial Court has failed to realize that the evidence available on the record is sufficient for the conviction of the respondent. Thus, leave to appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. We have heard learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant/State and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents has observed in para 47 of its judgment that in view of the fact that the witnesses in the case, Harishchand and Lachhan Bai, are son and wife of the deceased respectively and other witnesses, namely Nirmala Bai, Janaki Bai and Kanshiram Sahu are relatives of the deceased, they are shown to be interested witnesses. As per the established principle, evidence of interested witnesses cannot be ignored/considered unimportant, if their evidence is corroborated by the statement of other 6 witnesses or other evidence available in the case. In para 48, the trial Court has also observed that from the above investigation, it is seen that the motive of the accused in this case of prosecution is not of authentic nature, the weapons allegedly used in the incident were seized when the accused presented them and the uniqueness of those weapons was not established with the incident, there is lack of credible evidence regarding the beating of deceased Balram by accused Kejha and his family members and accused Kali Ram instigating the remaining accused for the same. 10. 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. 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. 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 7 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 Bablu