1 2025:CGHC:58334-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.218 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate, Surguja (CG) ...Appellant versus Ratan Lakda S/o Buli Lakda Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chita Mada, Police Station Kapu, District- Raigarh, (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : None, though served DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 02/12/2025 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 23/03/2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.330/2008, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 353 (on two counts) and 307 (on two counts) of IPC, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 05/09/2008, the complainant- Constable-Vinod Singh, who was posted at Kedma Outpost of SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.12.03 11:50:39 +0530 2 District Surguja, went to the village Matringa during investigation of Crime No.86/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 456 and 386/34 of IPC and stayed there at the said village in the night and, on the next day, i.e. on 06/09/2008 around 5 P.M., he went along with one Krishna Kumar Singh, the another Constable, and the villagers, namely, Ranjeet and Anil near Semar Bahar Nala for searching, where two persons were seen holding gun in their hand and when they were followed, they started running away, while firing upon them and the respondent-Ratan Lakda was caught hold by them, while another accused, namely, Immanuel Minj have succeeded to fled away. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the respondent and one Immanuel Minj for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 186/34 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Crime No.87/2008. During the course of investigation, a weapon (Bandook) was recovered from the respondent on 06/09/2008 vide seizure memo Ex.P-2 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ranjeet and Anil and the alleged weapon, so recovered, was sent for its query and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur for the offence mentioned hereinabove and the matter was thereafter committed to the learned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 353 (on two counts) and 307 (on two counts) of IPC, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime, therefore, he cannot be held guilty and accordingly, he has been acquitted with regard to the offence mentioned hereinabove and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the complainant- Constable Vinod Singh (PW-6) and the Constable Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-1), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him as such. 6) No one appears on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice of this appeal. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire record. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that on account of the incident occurred on 06/09/2008, the respondent-Ratan Lakda was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 353 (on two 4 counts) and 307 (on two counts) of IPC, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation that during the course of investigation of Crime No.86/2008, the complainant-Constable Vinod Singh and Krishna Kumar Singh during searching have seen the two persons holding the weapon and when they followed, they started running away, while firing upon them and, the respondent–Ratan Lakda was caught hold by them and, a weapon (Bandook) was recovered from him, while the another accused-Immanuel Minj has succeeded to fled away. Although, it was alleged by the prosecution as such, but the complainant-Constable Vinod Singh (PW-6), though deposed in his evidence, that on the said fateful day, when the respondent was followed, he was firing upon them, however, in his cross-examination, he failed to identify the person, who was being chased by them, as revealed from para 4 of his testimony. Even his statement is not found to be corroborated by Constable-Krishna Kumar Singh (PW-1), who was with him (PW-6), as he has not seen anyone firing upon them, except to hear the noise of Kartus (Goli). Further of his evidence would reveal the fact that a country-made pistol was recovered from the respondent-Ratan Lakda and not the “Bandook” as deposed by the Constable-Vinod Singh (PW-6). There is, thus, not only the disparity in their testimonies regarding recovery of the alleged weapon, used for the commission of the alleged crime, but even the query of it, was not placed on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In view thereof, no reliance could be placed upon their testimonies. 5 9) Moreover, Ranjeet (PW-7) and Anil (PW-3), in whose presence, the alleged weapon (Bandook) alleged to have been recovered from the respondent on 06/09/2008 vide Ex.P-2, have, however, failed to state that the same was recovered from him. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution, so as to hold that the respondent was involved for the commission of the alleged crime, as alleged by the prosecution. 10) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane