1 2025:CGHC:42628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2625 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Manipur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sarjoo Chakradhari S/o Thelsingh Chakradhari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kosmi-D, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chitrakumar Chakradhari S/o Sarjoo Chakradhari Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kosmi-D, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tekram Gada S/o Sunaram Gada Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kosmi-D, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.23 13:14:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.08.2025 1. I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 04/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband C.G. whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant along with the villagers reached the Police Station and lodged the written report stating that on 01.11.2022, his uncle Ravishankar alias Billa (deceased) had gone to Gariaband for personal work; after completion of work came back and asked for food from his wife upon saying that she has not cooked food, the deceased started abusing and fighting with his wife and daughter. After which the wife and daughter came out of the house. Thereafter, the deceased also came out and started abusing the 3 accused, who are his father in law Sarjoo, brother in law Chitra Kumar and neighbor Tekram Gada. Meanwhile, the three accused came to his uncle and saying, "You fight with our daughter and sister every day, today we will end your game, we will kill you" and started beating him due to which his uncle suffered serious injuries on his head and face and was bleeding after which the three accused fled from there. Then he went closer and saw that his uncle Ravishankar alias Billa was lying face down on the ground, with injuries on his head and face was bleeding, and had died. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents. Statements of the respondent under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein he has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. 6. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.12.2024 acquitted the respondent/accused herein from the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record. He submits that the Doctor PW-14 has clearly opined that the death is homicidal in nature and the injuries sustained by the deceased can be caused by the seized items. He further submits that learned Trial court has not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in which they have categorically stated that 4 due to assault by the accused respondents the deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death. He further submits that the chain of evidence is complete but the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence which supported the case of prosecution and acquitted the respondent, which is illegal, bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 8. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court along with the trial Court record annexed with the present appeal with utmost circumspection. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband District Gariyaband (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 56 and 57 as follows:- “In the light of the above mentioned judgments, it would be necessary to analyse the evidence of the eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution in the case very carefully and minutely. In this process, in the rural complaint filed by the complainant Dronacharya, Ex.P-20, the said witness has clearly stated that the accused beat the deceased with sticks, rods and brick pieces and at the same time this witness has mentioned the fact in dehati nalishi that after the incident Santoshi Dhruv and Ishwari Dhruv of the locality came and saw the incident, whereas the prosecution has presented the evidence of Santoshi Bai Dhruv P.W.-01 as the eyewitness of the incident and according to this 5 witness, on the date of the incident, on hearing the sound of abusive language and quarrel outside, on the advice of her husband Jainsingh who was eating at the time of the incident, she went outside and saw that the accused were beating the deceased with sticks, rods and bricks, which she told her husband after coming back. 57. It is important to note here that Santoshi Bai's house is located about one kilometer away from the deceased's house and to go to the deceased's house one has to turn several times in the street and she did not meet any person from the village while going to the deceased's house and neither did she tell anything about the incident to the people around the place of incident nor did she tell anyone about the incident on the way. The fact of hearing a voice one kilometer away from one's house seems extremely unbelievable.” 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 6 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. In the present case, as alleged on the date of the incident, on a quarrel between the respondents and the deceased, the respondents got angry and attacked the deceased with an iron rod, wooden stick and a piece of brick on his head and killed him. However, no concrete and clear evidence has been found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to prove the said motive and the accused themselves have clearly denied the question asked in this regard in their statement, due to which the fact of dispute between the deceased and the accused is not proved in the absence of evidence. Further the statement of eye witness is also not reliable. Therefore, the basis of the said motive taken by the prosecution is not acceptable as it is baseless. Generally, it is the prosecution that has to prove its case beyond doubt, but the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case on the basis of its evidence and it is clearly evident that the crime has been registered against the accused by the investigating officer of the case only on the basis of suspicion and it is also a well-established principle of law that no matter how strong the suspicion is, it cannot take the place of proof. 7 12. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and other evidence available on record, it cannot be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record. We do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application is rejected and consequently, acquittal appeal is also dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti