1 2025:CGHC:61372 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.135 of 2021 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Smt. Sarita Bai W/o Chhoturam Aged About 25 Years R/o Krishnanagar, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Shri Sourabh Pandey, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 16/12/2025 1. 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 14.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur (Surguja) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.551/2011, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent-Smt. Sarita Bai has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 429 of IPC on the allegation that on the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.12.17 10:53:49 +0530 2 date of incident, i.e., on 15.05.2011, at about 4 to 5 AM, she has mixed the poisonous substance in the poultry feed, as a consequence of which, the chicken birds of the complainant-Vinod Agariya have died, after eating the said poisonous poultry feed. According to the prosecution, the complainant has received the alleged information from his sister Smt. Reena (PW-3) that the respondent has mixed the alleged poisonous substance item in the poultry feed and after eating the same, as many as 22 chicken birds of him, have died. 3. Smt. Reena (PW-3), who was stated to have been an eye-witness of this case, has stated in her evidence at para-2 that on the date of incident, the respondent in the morning around 4 AM, has mixed the poisonous substance in the poultry feed and kept the same behind the house of one Kailash Yadav, the neighbour of her brother-Vinod Agariya-the complainant herein, and it was deposed further that after eating the said poultry feed, the chicken birds of her brother started dying. Although, it was stated by her as such, but, in her cross- examination, it was stated that the alleged fact was, however, not disclosed, when her statement was recorded by the concerned Police Authorities under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and has stated the alleged fact for the first time before the Court. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon her testimony. Even otherwise, her statement is not found to be corroborated by her brother, namely, Vinod Agariya (PW-1), the complainant herein, as he has stated for the first time before the Court that 22 chicken birds of him have died after consuming the said poisonous poultry feed. 3 4. That apart, the poisonous poultry feed, alleged to have been seized from the spot on 17.05.2011 vide Ex.P-4 in presence of Anand Vishwakarma (PW-2) and one Ram Singh, but, Anand Vishwakarma, who was examined as PW-2, has, however, not stated that the alleged poisonous poultry feed was recovered in his presence. It, therefore, appears from perusal of the record that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated in their evidence that the poisonous substance was mixed by the respondent in the said poultry feed, so as to hold that after eating the poisonous poultry feed, the complainant’s chicken birds have died and the trial Court, after taking note of those materials, has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime. 5. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane