1 2025:CGHC:55041-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 350 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Sarbi Padda @ Jairam Dhurva @ Jairam Nureti S/o Tagru Aged About 28 Years R/o Hidur Thana Baande, District Kanker And R/o Gumchur/ Gudumgunda, Police Station And District - Narayanpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12/11/2025 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.09.2024 passed in Special Case (N.I.A.) No.10/2022 by learned Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, whereby the BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) and Sections 10, 13(1), 38(2) & 39(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called as “UAPA”). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.06.2022 at around 4.00 P.M., Inspector Prem Prakash Avadhiya (PW-15) received information from an informant that a suspicious person from Bastar is undergoing treatment at A.K. Multispecialty Hospital, Bemetara located on Raipur Road. PW-15 immediately informed the Senior Officers about the said information. Thereafter, a team was formed, witnesses were summoned and Superintendent of Police, Dharmendra Singh Chhawai, Additional Superintendent of Police Pankaj Patel, Sub-Divisional Police Officer Rajkumar Burman, Deputy Superintendent of Police Rajiv Sharma (PW-11) and Sub-Inspector Nasir Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector Arvind Sharma, Head Constable No. 160 Ravindra Tiwari (PW-8), Head Constable No. 328 Hemant Sahu, Head Constable No. 432 Rameshwar Mandle, Head Constable No. 404 Lokesh Singh (PW- 20), Constable Bhenu Sahu, Constable No. 203 Rajesh Dhruv, Constable No. 481 Shivsen, Constable No. 140 Rahul Yadav, Constable No. 74 Mukesh Mahire, Constable AIB's Head Constable Hitesh Singh, Constable Ashish Rai and witnesses Roshan Singh Rajput (PW-7) and Krishna Yadav reached near Bed No. 1 in second four of AK Multispeciality Hospital, when the unknown person lying on the said bed got nervous on seeing the 3 police and tried to run away. The accused was surrounded and caught. On questioning the said unknown person in presence of witnesses in the Hospital premises, the said unknown person told his name as Sarbi Padda @ Jayaram Dhurva @ Jayaram Nureti and identified himself as a Deputy Commander of banned Maoist organisation Kaknar L.O.S. Inspector Prem Prakash Avadhiya (PW-15) after taking consent from the respondent-accused, searched him in the presence of witnesses Roshan Singh Rajput (PW-7) and Krishna Yadav. At the instance of the accused, his bag was searched in the presence of the above mentioned witnesses and pamphlets containing Maoist ideology (Exhibit P/39), press statement (Exhibit P/40), Naxalite literature (Exhibit P/41), manifesto and constitution of Dandakaranya Chhatra Sangh (Exhibit P/42), Naxalite literature (Exhibit P/43) and Rs. 30,000/- in cash were seized as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/14). The accused was being treated by Dr.Praveen Sahu (PW-1). The statement of Dr. Praveen Sahu was recorded by Inspector P.P.Awadhiya (PW-15) and after recording Dehati Nalishi in ‘0’ (Exhibit P/44) and numbered FIR (Exhibit P/45) was registered after reaching the Police Station. 3. During the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajeev Sharma (PW-11) inspected the crime scene and prepared a site map (Exhibit P/19). The accused was arrested as per the arrest memo (Exhibit P/15) and his family was informed vide Exhibit P/20. Letter (Exhibit P/21) was sent to the Tehsildar, 4 Bemetara for identification of the accused. Interrogation report (Exhibit P/23) was prepared after interrogating the accused. A memo (Exhibit P/31) was sent through the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara for prosecution sanction in the case. The Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Home Department, Raipur accorded prosecution sanction vide order Exhibit P/32 and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court concerned. 4. Charges were framed against the accused-respondent Sarbi Padda @ Jayram Dhurwa @ Jayram Nureti for the offences punishable under Sections 419 of the IPC and Sections 10, 13 (1), 38 (2), 39(2) of the UAPA alleging that on 09.06.2022 at about 7.45 P.M., in A.K. Multispeciality Hospital, Bemetara, District Bemetara, concealing his real name and identity being the Area Commander of Communist Party of India (Maoist Organisation) Partapur, and identifying himself as the friend of Dr. Sukes Vadde, Medical Officer, CHC, Antagarh and family member of Ramu Gawade and presenting his name as Domar Singh, got himself admitted in the said hospital for treatment and committed fraud, and continued to be a member of the banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist Organisation), kept illegal propaganda material in his possession for its promotion with the intention of furthering its activities and worked to promote the activities of the said organisation. 5 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited as many as 45 exhibits and 2 Articles. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2024 on the ground that the most important witness of the incident in question who was Dr. Sukesh Vadde, has not been examined as witness in this case nor the prosecution has given any reason for not examining Dr. Sukesh Vadde. In such circumstances, an adverse presumption was liable to be drawn against the police/prosecution. Hence, this acquittal appeal. 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State submits that learned trial Court erred in law as well as on facts in recording the finding of acquittal against the respondent/accused. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper and correct perspective, and instead laid undue emphasis on minor omissions and contradictions, which has resulted in an erroneous finding of acquittal. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the accused, namely Sarbi Padda Jairam Dhurva @ Jairam Nureti, had used a fake name, Domar Singh, for getting himself admitted in the hospital and was undergoing treatment there. Upon enquiry by the prosecution, the accused admitted that he was, in fact, Sarbi Padda. His Aadhaar Card also substantiates this fact. Learned trial Court did not properly 6 appreciate the statements of Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2) and Arjun Tati (PW-3), who were former active members of Naxal organization and had surrendered in the year 2021. Both witnesses, who are now assisting the police, have clearly stated that accused Sarbi Padda Jairam Dhurva @ Jairam Nureti was a member of Naxal organization and was actively involved in its activities. He also submits that learned trial Court further failed to correctly evaluate the testimonies of Roshan Singh Rajput (PW-7) and Head Constable Ravindra Tiwari (PW-8), who were part of the police team that went to arrest the accused/respondent. Both these witnesses categorically stated that when they reached the hospital, the accused was lying on the bed, and upon seeing the police party, he attempted to flee but was apprehended on the spot. Learned trial Court also overlooked the significance of the articles seized namely, the literature, pamphlets, and documents pertaining to Maoist ideology (Exhibits P-39 to P-43), seized under Exhibit P-14, which clearly establish the accused’s association and ideological connection with the banned Naxal organization. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused / respondent cannot be said to be innocent. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the complicity of the accused / respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is illegal, improper, and incorrect, and therefore liable to be set aside and 7 the accused/respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the offences with which he was charged. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused / respondent opposes the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant / State and submits that the trial Court considering the material available on record and evidence adduced by the prosecution has rightly acquitted the accused / respondent, which warrants no interference by this Court. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and records of the trial Court. 10. The trial Court in para 33 of its judgment has observed that Dr. Praveen Sahu (PW-1), who was in charge of A.K. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Bemetara, stated that when a patient was brought to the hospital for medical treatment by Dr. Sukesh Wadde, he (Dr. Praveen Sahu) instructed hospital employee Kabir Sahu (PW-6) to admit the said patient under the name Domar Singh and prepare the admission slip accordingly. Dr. Praveen Sahu (PW-1) has also stated that, over a phone call, he had directed the entry of the patient’s name as Domar Singh, resident of village Saldha. However, there is no testimony from Dr. Praveen Sahu (PW-1) or Kabir Sahu (PW-6) confirming that, at the time of admission, the said patient concealed his real identity Sarbi Padma @ Jairam Dhurwa @ Jairam Nureti and instead gave the false name Domar 8 Singh. During his deposition before the Court via video conferencing, Dr. Praveen Sahu (PW-1) expressed doubt as to whether the accused in this case was indeed the same person who had been admitted to A.K. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Bemetara, for medical treatment. Akhilesh Kumar Mandavi (PW-22), who accompanied the accused as an assistant, has not stated that the accused concealed his identity while getting admitted to A.K. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Bemetara. 11. The trial Court in para 34 of its judgment has observed that the identification proceedings were conducted on 13.06.2022 by Tehsildar Rajkumar Maravi (PW-14) as per Exhibit P-38. However, witnesses Akhilesh Kumar Mandavi (PW-22) and Vinod Mandavi (PW-23) did not clearly state that they identified the accused during the identification process. As per the identification panchnama (Exhibit P-5), Tehsildar Rajkumar Maravi (PW-14) had arranged for Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2) to identify the accused. However, the confidential police informer, Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2), did not support the identification proceedings. According to the arrest memo (Exhibit P-15), the accused was arrested on 10.06.2022 and presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, on the same date for judicial remand. However, the remand application and order (File No. 15 N.I. 16/2022) dated 10.06.2022 do not mention that the accused was produced baparda (with face covered) before the court. Since the accused was not kept baparda between 10.06.2022 and 9 13.06.2022, until 5:40 P.M., the identification proceedings recorded in Exhibits P-5 and P-38 were not conducted in accordance with law and are therefore neither reliable nor acceptable. Consequently, the identification of the accused is not proved. 12. The trial Court in para 35 of its judgment has observed that Inspector Prem Prakash Avadhiya (PW-15) did not allow the accused to conduct his personal search prior to searching the accused. Similarly, before conducting the search of the accused, he did not have the accompanying police staff, hospital staff, or other witnesses searched by the accused. A.K. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Bemetara, is a public place. There is no clear evidence to establish whether the accused was admitted in the hospital’s general ward or private ward for treatment. Likewise, there is no evidence showing that the room or ward where the accused was admitted was exclusively under his possession. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the articles seized as per Exhibit P-14 were recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused. Therefore, the materials mentioned in the seizure memo (Exhibit P-14) are not proved to have been seized at the instance of the accused. 13. The trial Court in para 36 of its judgment has also observed that confidential informants Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2) and Arjun Tati (PW-3) have stated that their written statements (Exhibits P-6 and P-9) were given as per the directions of the 10 Superintendent of Police. Hence, these statements do not appear to have been made voluntarily and therefore cannot be accepted as reliable evidence. 14. The trial Court in para 37 of its judgment also observed that both confidential informants, Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2) and Arjun Tati (PW-3), have not explicitly stated that the accused was a member of a Naxal organization or that he was engaged in promoting or propagating the activities of the Naxal group. Further, Darbari Ram Komra @ Jai Singh (PW-2) has admitted that he did not provide the police with a description of the accused’s physical appearance, and Arjun Tati (PW-3) has stated that he did not supply the police with a list of surrendered Naxal members. Sub-Inspector Santosh Mishra (PW-18) did not verify the authenticity of the Naxal profile (Exhibit P-26). Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the accused was a member of a Naxal organization or that he engaged in activities to promote or advance the objectives of such an organization. 15. The trial Court in para 38 of its judgment has also held that the most important witness in the present case is Dr. Sukesh Wadde. However, the police/prosecution did not include Dr. Sukesh Wadde as a prosecution witness in the case, nor has any reason been provided for his non-examination. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the police/prosecution. The trial Court also held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and 11 acquitted the accused / respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 419 of the IPC and Sections 10, 13(1), 38(2), and 39(2) of the UAPA. 16. 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 v. 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." 17. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Supreme Court held as under:- “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) 12 “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 , SCC p.432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 13 (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ ” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by 14 the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 18. Dr.Praveen Sahu (PW-1) in para 2 of his evidence before the Court has stated that in the year 2012, he went to Kyrgyzstan along with a group of 12 other people to study medicine. Dr. Sukesh Wadde was also a part of that group, and during that time, 15 he became acquainted with him. After completing their medical studies, they obtained their degrees and returned in the year 2017. Thereafter, in 2018, they went to Delhi to appear for the MCI (Medical Council of India) examination, where he again met Dr. Sukesh Wadde. In para 6 of his evidence, he has stated that he used to have occasional phone conversations with Dr. Sukesh Wadde to inquire about each other’s well-being. About four to five days before 07.06.2022, Dr. Sukesh had called him and they talked on the phone. Dr. Sukesh Wadde told him that there was a patient who had some medical problem and needed treatment. This witness asked Dr. Sukesh Wadde that if there were any medical test reports, he should send them to him via WhatsApp so that he could look at them and advise accordingly. In para 7 of his evidence, he has stated that on 07.06.2022, Dr. Sukesh Wadde called him at around 7:00 P.M. and asked him where he was. This witness told him that he was in the village. Dr. Sukesh then told him that he was bringing the patient with him and was reaching Rajnandgaon. He asked him for directions to reach Bemetara, so this witness told him the route via Durg to Bemetara. Upon hearing that, Dr. Sukesh said that he was heading towards Bemetara accordingly. 19. Darbari Ram Komra @ Jaisingh (PW-2) in para 2 of his evidence before the trial Court has stated that from July 2011 to 2021, he was an active member of Kiskodo Area LOS Naxalite organization. From 2017 to 2021, he worked as the Area Deputy 16 Commander in Kiskodo SOS. In 2014, after acquiring medical knowledge, he received training at the Naxalite Unity Centre, Katara, located in District Narayanpur, Orchha Block, and used to provide medical treatment to the Naxalites. In 2015, the accused, Sarbi Padda @ Jayaram, had come to give training related to military tactics, weapons, IEDs, and grenades. He was called to that training camp to provide medical assistance, due to which he was present at that training program. It was during that time that he became acquainted with the accused. At that time, he treated Sarbi Padda @ Jayaram. After the training concluded, all participants returned to their respective areas. That training camp lasted for 15 days. In para 3, he has stated that on 10th May 2021, he voluntarily left the Naxalite organization of Kiskodo Area Committee and surrendered before the Superintendent of Police at North Bastar, Kanker. Since then, he has been working with the police as a confidential soldier (informant). In para 4, he has stated that accused Sarbi Padda @ Jayaram is a member of the Naxalite organization’s instructor group under the North Bastar Division. The police did not conduct any identification proceedings of the accused in his presence, but his signature is on Exhibit P-5 (part A to A). The police also took him to the Bilaspur Court, where the Judge recorded his statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is marked as Exhibit P-6, and his signature appears on part A to A of that document. The police officials interrogated him and recorded his statement. In para 5 of 17 of his evidence, he admitted that in 2015, a 15-day training camp for Naxalites was held at Kuemari and the accused had come there to provide training. At that time, accused Sarbi Padda @ Jayaram came to him for medical treatment. He do not know whether the accused’s surname is Dhurwa. 20. From perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it transpires that that learned trial Court observed that neither Dr. Praveen Sahu (PW-1) nor Kabir Sahu (PW-6) proved that the patient himself gave a false name at the time of admission. Dr. Praveen Sahu also expressed doubt during his video-conference deposition as to whether the accused before the Court was the same person who was admitted to A.K.Multi-Speciality Hospital. Moreover, witness Akhilesh Kumar Mandavi (PW-22), who accompanied the accused, did not state that the accused concealed his identity. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused intentionally misrepresented himself as “Domar Singh.” 21. The identification parade was conducted by Tehsildar Rajkumar Maravi (PW-14) on 13.06.2022. However, the accused was not kept baparda between his arrest on 10.06.2022 and the identification proceedings on 13.06.2022. Moreover, the witnesses failed to clearly identify the accused. The trial Court therefore rightly held that the identification process was legally defective and unreliable. 18 22. The place of recovery, i.e., A.K.Multi-Speciality Hospital, was a public area, and there was no evidence that the accused was in exclusive possession of any room or ward. The recovery under Exhibit P-14 was therefore not proved to be from the exclusive possession of the accused. Both confidential informants, Darbari Ram Komra (PW-2) and Arjun Tati (PW-3), admitted that their written statements (Exhibits P-6 and P-9) were made at the direction of the Superintendent of Police. The trial Court thus rightly held that these statements lacked voluntariness and could not be treated as reliable evidence. The informants did not state that the accused was a member of a banned Naxal organization or that he was involved in promoting its activities. The police also did not verify the authenticity of the alleged Naxal profile (Exhibit P-26). 23. The trial Court rightly emphasized that Dr. Sukesh Wadde, the person who had brought the accused to the hospital, was not examined by the prosecution. No explanation was offered for his non-examination. Therefore, an adverse inference was properly drawn against the prosecution. 24. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material produced by the prosecution, and taking into account the findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the accused/respondent of the charges under Section 419 of the IPC and Sections 10, 13(1), 38(2), and 39(2) of the UAPA, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial 19 court has not committed any illegality or infirmity. We find no merit in this acquittal appeal. 25. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu