1 2025:CGHC:58560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2252 of 2025 • Rahul Dewar S/o Manohar Dewar Aged About 21 Years Sakin Navapara Dadhi, Ps Dadhi, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, .. Appellant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ..Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mrs. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shr i Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board 03.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 03/2025, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence 110 r/w 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months S.I. 121 (1) r/w 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months S.I. 132 r/w 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month S.I. 223 r/w 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days S.I. 324 r/w 3(5) of BNS R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, Complainant Constable Swapnil Pandey and Constable Chandrakant Chauhan, accompanied with Assistant Sub-Inspector Suresh Singh Rajput, had left for Khandsaara on their motorcycles on patrol, and at around 1:15 AM, a white- coloured four-wheeler was coming towards Khandsaara from village Chamari- Ataria. Seeing him from a distance, the said four-wheeler turned the vehicle back towards Ataria and started driving away. On getting suspicious, the complainant along with constable Chandrakant Chauhan chased the said four-wheeler on his motorcycle Pulsar number CG-25-M- 3533 and before Chamari turn, near Jagamadwa Khar, they overtook the four-wheeler Tata Magic bearing registration number CG-17-T-1090 and moved ahead and were shouting and signaling to stop, but the driver of the said Tata Magic did not stop his vehicle and the other four persons sitting behind him were shouting, "Don't stop the vehicle, drive ahead at a fast speed," whose voices he heard. The driver, with the intention of 3 killing him, drove his vehicle at a high speed and hit his motorcycle. The driver hit the Pulsar, due to which he fell along with his fellow constable Chandrakant and the driver of the Tata Magic dragged his motorcycle Pulsar on the road for about 50 meters. As the motorcycle got stuck in front of the vehicle, the driver and the other four people sitting behind left the Tata Magic and ran towards the fields. On going near the Tata Magic and checking, 06 bundles of round copper wire of electric transformer, 03 bundles of thin small plates, 04 pieces of ironangle set nut bolt and 01 piece of iron crowbar, about 02 liters of oil like oil filled in a 05 liter plastic container and a bag full of pan and pliers were found in the vehicle. Due to deliberate hitting with the intention of killing by the driver of the Tata Magic vehicle and his four companions sitting in the vehicle, he got injured in his right leg, toe, right hand, head, left hand toe and two middle fingers and constable Chandrakant got injured in his left hand, shoulder, elbow, back of right thigh, right foot near the ankle. On the basis of the above report of the complainant Swapnil Pandey, a crime was registered on zero in the dehati nalisi against the driver of the Tata Magic and four other unknown persons sitting in the said vehicle. Thereafter, on oral complaint made by constable Swapnil Pandey before Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, crime number 620/2024 for offences punishable under sections 110, 121 (1), 132, 223, 324 r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered and investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, memorandum statements were recorded, statements of the complainant and witnesses were also recorded and thereafter chargesheet was filed by the police against the present appellant and one other accused person before the court of Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited documents in support of case of the prosecution. The appellant has neither examined any witness in his defence nor exhibited any document. 4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that conviction of the appellant cannot be made on the basis of mere statement of constable Swapnil Pandey and constable Chandrakant Chaughan as their statements are not corroborated and unreliable. She further submits that no ingredient of offence under Section 110 and Section 121(1) of BNS is made out against the present appellant and therefore his conviction is unstainable. There is no independent evidence apart from memorandum statement of other co-accused Aashik Dewar that at the leave of incident, he was driving the vehicle i.e. Tata Magic. There is no evidence on record pertaining to Tata Magic being driven by the appellant or the other accused person at the time of incident and was 5 used to dash the complainant’s motorcycle. No assessment of damage of the Tata Magic was made in order to corroborate the fact that the said Tata Magic was used to dash the motorcycle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution has deliberately not chosen to cite any independent witnesses from the logicality, but only recorded the statement of the close interest witnesses. The evidence of the complainant does not inspire the confidence and therefore no offences under BNS is made out against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in AIROnline 2024 SC 764. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have submitted that considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant which is justified and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the Complainant Constable Swapnil Pandey and Constable Chandrakant Chauhan, accompanied with Assistant Sub-Inspector Suresh Singh Rajput, had left for Khandsaara on their motorcycles on patrol, and at around 1:15 AM, a white- coloured four-wheeler was coming towards Khandsaara from village Chamari-Ataria. Seeing him from a distance, the said four-wheeler 6 turned the vehicle back towards Ataria and started driving away. On getting suspicious, the complainant along with constable Chandrakant Chauhan chased the said four-wheeler on his motorcycle Pulsar number CG-25-M-3533 and before Chamari turn, near Jagamadwa Khar, they overtook the four-wheeler Tata Magic bearing registration number CG- 17-T-1090 and moved ahead and were shouting and signaling to stop, but the driver of the said Tata Magic did not stop his vehicle and the other four persons sitting behind him were shouting, "Don't stop the vehicle, drive ahead at a fast speed," whose voices he heard. The driver, with the intention of killing him, drove his vehicle at a high speed and hit his motorcycle. The driver hit the Pulsar, due to which he fell along with his fellow constable Chandrakant and the driver of the Tata Magic dragged his motorcycle Pulsar on the road for about 50 meters. As the motorcycle got stuck in front of the vehicle, the driver and the other four people sitting behind left the Tata Magic and ran towards the fields. On going near the Tata Magic and checking, 06 bundles of round copper wire of electric transformer, 03 bundles of thin small plates, 04 pieces of ironangle set nut bolt and 01 piece of iron crowbar, about 02 liters of oil like oil filled in a 05 liter plastic container and a bag full of pan and pliers were found in the vehicle. Due to deliberate hitting with the intention of killing by the driver of the Tata Magic vehicle and his four companions sitting in the vehicle, he got injured in his right leg, toe, right hand, head, left hand toe and two middle fingers and constable Chandrakant got injured in his left hand, shoulder, elbow, back of right thigh, right foot near the ankle. 11. On perusal of the records, it is admitted fact that the appellant has 7 not dropped the vehicle at the time of incident. No witnesses have said that they identified the present appellant at the time of occurrence. Prosecution has failed to conduct TIP under Section 9 of the Evidence Act and only on the basis of statement made by the co-accused Aashik Dewar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the present applicant has been made accused. There is no recovery made out against the appellant. 12. Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that how much of information received from accused may be proved—Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police ofÏcer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. On bare perusal of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that this Section deals with “discovery of fact”, if there is no discovery of fact recovered by the police then the statement made by the accused in custody before the police is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of Evidence Act because 25 of Evidence Act says that no confession made to a police ofÏcer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. It is pertinent to mention herein that there are only two types of confessional statement are permitted under the law Judicial Confession which is statement made before the Judicial Magistrate, Extra Judicial confession. The confessional statement made before the police is inadmissible in evidence. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the 8 prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the appellant as the person driving the Tata Magic vehicle at the time of the incident. The record reveals that neither of the material witnesses identified the appellant during trial, nor was any Test Identification Parade conducted to legally fix the identity of the appellant. It is equally noticeable that no recovery has been effected from the appellant, nor has any independent corroboration been adduced to support the memorandum statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which, in absence of any discovery, is legally inadmissible. Thus, the conviction of the appellant rests solely on uncorroborated statements of police witnesses and the inadmissible statement of the co-accused, which cannot form the sole basis of conviction. 14. It is trite law that in a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When serious lapses such as non-conducting of TIP, absence of independent witnesses, lack of material recovery, and the failure to establish identity are evident on record, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant without there being legally admissible and reliable evidence on record. 15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions 9 Trial No. 03/2025, convicting the appellant under Sections 110, 121(1), 132, 223, 324 read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby set aside. 16. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti