1 2025:CGHC:57114-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3569 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Sonu @ Navakishan Chandra S/o Suman Chandra Aged About 22 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Pushpendra Chandra S/o Bhojram Chandra Aged About 20 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3. Santosh Chandra @ Topi S/o Panchram Chandra Aged About 39 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4. Bhojram Chandra S/o Bahadur Chandra Aged About 46 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5. Nagendra Chandra S/o Tarun Chandra Aged About 26 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6. Vinod Chandra S/o Babulal Chandra Aged About 26 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7. Rajkumar Chandra S/o Phirat Ram Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Kekrabhat, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8. Rakesh Kumar Chandra @ Chhotu @ Nitis S/o Phirat Ram Chandra Aged About 25 Years R/o Kekrabhat, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 9. Kanhaiya Aadile S/o Uchit Ram Aadile Aged About 37 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10. Javed Banjare S/o Terhans Banjare Aged About 20 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 11. Phool Singh Yadav S/o Sadhram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 12. Bedram Sahu S/o Ghasiya Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 13. Tulsi Baghel S/o Ganesh Ram Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.26 14:43:41 +0530 2 14. Ramsai Kashyap S/o Mohan Lal Kashyap Aged About 19 Years R/o Semriya, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 15. Dhaneshwar Chandra S/o Jairam Chandra Aged About 29 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 16. Sunil Chandra S/o Dadulal Chandra Aged About 27 Years R/o Borsi, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 17. Ramswaroop Kashyap S/o Mohan Lal Kashyap Aged About 52 Years R/o Semriya, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 18. Faguram Kashyap S/o Bodhi Ram Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Semriya, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 19. Jaisingh Manhar @ Jailor S/o Gangaram Satnami Aged About 25 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 20. Sonu Sahu S/o Manglu Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 21. Dinesh Sahu S/o Sitaram @ Bhuru Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Taldevri, P.S. Birra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 22. Shankar Chandra @ Nitish S/o Phirat Ram Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Kekrabhat, P.S. Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 23. Pappu Chandra @ Bisahoo @ Chhiradiha S/o Chamru Chandra Aged About 32 Years Presently R/o Chorbhatti, P.S. Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For State/Applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.11 .2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/State. 3 2. Learned State counsel submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry had already been cured. He further submits that through memo of submission dated 07.11.2025, the State is hereby filing the relevant exhibited documents, which have taken on record. Therefore, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 3. Also heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 43 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. 5. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.06.2025 passed in Session Trial No. 60 of 2019, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II, 302, 186 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) Praksh Bharti elder son of complainant, Lacchiram Bharti used to drive vehicle Scorpio bearing No. CG 22 H 8034. On the date of incident i.e. on 06.05.2019 at about 10.15 a.m., 4 taking passengers in the vehicle from Champa was going towards his village. Then at village Taldevri near Semariya turn, the Scorpio met with an accident with a motorcycle. As as result of accident, Mahadev Chandra who was riding on the motorcycle with his daughter Pari @ Gunjan died at the spot. Being outraged of the incident, the villagers of village Semariya and other smashed the Scorpio and assaulted Prakash Bharti with hands, fists, legs, stick and belt and caused severe injuries. On getting information, the Police reached the spot, but the villagers also scuffled with the police party and committed marpeet. Prakash Bharti was taken to hospital where he died during the course of treatment. After his death, First Information Report was registered and matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested, photographs with regard to offence were collected and memorandum statements of accused persons were recorded. (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents/accused and the respondents/accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondents/accused abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial 5 Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondents/accused from the offences charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2025, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences charged by unjustifiably discarding the evidence of the complainant without assigning any cogent or substantial reason. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Umesh Singh (PW-9), who narrated the true version of the incident and identified the accused persons present at the spot. He stated that the accused were assaulting the driver of the Scorpio vehicle, namely, Prakash Bharti. It is further submitted that the testimony of eye-witness Kushal Prasad Jatwar (PW-13), who categorically stated that he had seen the accused persons abusing and assaulting the said driver, stood fully corroborated by the testimonies of Hetram Bharti (PW-14) and Umesh Singh (PW-9). However, the learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of these prosecution witnesses and erroneously acquitted the accused persons. 8. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned trial Court also failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Inspector R.K. Tode (PW-18), who deposed that, pursuant to the 6 disclosure statements of accused Sonu Chandra @ Navakishan and Pushpendra Chandra, the weapons of offence—namely, a stick and a belt—were seized vide Exs. P/72 and P/73, respectively, which were used in the assault on the deceased. It is urged that the statements of the prosecution witnesses collectively establish the culpability of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Despite this, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in law by disbelieving their testimonies and acquitting the accused solely on the basis of minor omissions and contradictions, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are thus perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 9. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondents has observed in paragraphs 94 to 108 as follows: “94. Another witness, Laxman (PW-21), stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place about five years ago. On the date of the incident, the deceased Prakash Bharti’s father, Lachchi Ram Bharti, called him and informed him that Prakash Bharti had met with an accident near Taldevari and had been assaulted, due to which he had become unconscious. He had been taken to the hospital. On being informed, this witness, together with Lachchi 7 Bharti and Kishore, reached the District Hospital, Janjgir. At the hospital, they saw that Prakash Bharti was unconscious. From there, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. 95. This witness further stated that he later came to know that Prakash Bharti had passed away. Memorandums Ex. P-70 and P-71 bear his signatures at portions B to B. The seizure memo Ex. P-72 also bears his signatures at portions B to B. Police officials had told him that they were preparing a seizure memo and asked him to sign it, upon which he signed. The seizure memos Ex. P-73, Ex. P-74 and Ex. P-77, Ex. P-78 also bear his signatures at portions B to B. The damage panchnama Ex. P-79 bears his signatures at portions B to B. The site map Ex. P-67 also bears his signatures at portions B to B. 96. This witness further stated that the deceased had sustained injuries and was unconscious when he saw him at the hospital. Although he admitted his signatures on the prosecution documents, he denied that the memorandum proceedings or the seizure proceedings were carried out in his presence. He also denied that the damage panchnama proceedings were carried out in his presence. He denied all the suggestions made by the prosecution against the accused persons. In his cross-examination, however, he accepted the suggestion that he had signed all the documents at Police Station Birra at the request of the police officials. He also admitted that he had not read what was written in those documents nor were they read out to him. 97. Another witness, Inspector Ranjit Singh Kanwar 8 (PW-22), stated in his examination-in-chief that on 07.05.2019 at 19:50 hours, he received an intimation from the ward boy of Primary Hospital, Sarkanda, regarding the death of Prakash Bharti, son of Lachchi Ram, resident of Dehdi Bhadra, Police Station Bhatgaon. Based on this information, he registered a zero-number marg intimation, which is Ex. P-108 and bears his signatures at portions B to B. The information was also forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. 98. In addition, Assistant Sub-Inspector Siyaram Yadav (PW-23), in his examination-in-chief, stated that he recognized accused Shankarlal Chandra and that he was present at the time of the incident. On 06.05.2019, on receiving information, he along with Inspector R.K. Tode and other staff went to Taldevari. Upon reaching there, they saw that an accident had occurred involving a vehicle, in which two persons had died and their bodies were covered with white cloth at the scene. The Scorpio vehicle was lying damaged on the road. The relatives of the deceased had blocked the road with bamboo and created a chakka jam (road blockade). The crowd present there was assaulting the driver of the Scorpio with kicks, fists, belts and sticks, and were also abusing him. 99. This witness further stated that they intervened and took the driver to the hospital, where he died during treatment. While trying to save the driver, the crowd had also assaulted him, causing injury to a finger of his left hand. The accused persons obstructed him in the discharge of his official duty. His medical examination and X-ray were also conducted. 9 100. This witness further stated that the Station House Officer of Police Station Birra had prepared a list of the accompanying staff who had gone to Taldevari for the accident and chakka jam incident, which is Ex. P- 66. He had submitted an application to the learned J.M.F.C. regarding the accused persons of Crime No. 48/19 of Police Station Birra having assaulted him and causing obstruction in duty. This application is Ex. P- 109, bearing his signatures at portions A to A. On 08.05.2019, he produced a black Samsung mobile phone containing videos of the incident dated 06.05.2019, which was seized vide Ex. P-65, bearing his signatures at portions S to S. 101. He further stated that on 08.05.2019 at Police Station Birra, a Vivo V-9 black mobile phone produced by Constable Lachchi Prasad Sahu was seized, and the seizure memo Ex. P-68 was prepared in his presence, bearing his signatures at portions B to B. He also issued a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding the authenticity of the videos and photographs contained in his Samsung mobile phone with Jio SIM No. 8319935582. This certificate is Ex. P-110, bearing his signatures at portions A to A. He recorded his statement. 102. This witness further stated that, at the time of recording his statement, he had disclosed that during the incident, the relatives and family members of the deceased—namely, Sonu Chandra @ Navakishan, Pushpendra Chandra, Santosh Chandra, Bhojram Chandra, Nagendra Chandra, Vinod Chandra, Dhaneshwar Chandra, Shivshankar Chandra, Sunil Chandra, Rajkumar Chandra of village Kekerabhat, Rakesh Chandra, Shankar Chandra (elder brother of 10 Rakesh @ Nitish), Javed Banjare, Satish Khutte, Kanhaiya Aadele, Tulsi Baghel, Jay Singh Manhar, Sonu Sahu, and Dinesh Sahu—were all assaulting the driver; and that Phoolsingh Yadav and Bedram Sahu had helped him in saving the driver. 103. This witness also described the investigative steps taken by him and the efforts made to save the deceased. He admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that the relatives of the deceased and the accused persons were assaulting the driver at the time of the incident, and that Phool Singh Yadav and Bedram Sahu had tried to save the driver. In his cross- examination, he admitted that when they reached the spot, a crowd of 400–500 people had gathered. In his examination-in-chief, he did not mention any specific accused and referred only to the crowd. 104. This witness disclosed the names of the accused only after accepting the suggestions of the prosecution, otherwise, in his examination-in-chief he did not name any accused. It is also significant that in his examination-in-chief, he had clearly stated that he did not know the accused persons either by their names or by their faces. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on his testimony with certainty. 105. Another witness, Assistant Sub-Inspector Gopal Khandekar (PW-24), stated in his examination-in-chief that on 08.05.2019, a zero-number marg was registered at Police Station Sarkanda based on the hospital memo received from Primary Hospital, regarding the death of Prakash Bharti. Upon receiving instructions from the Station House Officer, Sarkanda, to conduct the marg panchnama proceedings, he 11 reached Primary Hospital, Bilaspur, and issued notices to the witnesses for their presence in the proceedings. The notice is Ex. P-111, bearing his signatures at portions A to A. On the same day, he prepared the inquest panchnama of the deceased Prakash Bharti in the presence of witnesses. The inquest is Ex. P-112, bearing his signatures at portions A to A. 106. He then prepared the requisition for post-mortem examination of the deceased Prakash Bharti and sent it through Constable No. 440 Santosh Gupta to SIMS, Bilaspur. The requisition is Ex. P-113, bearing his signatures at portions A to A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not conduct any investigation and that he had only prepared the marg panchnama. 107. From the statements of the above witnesses and from the prosecution documents, it is clear that on 06.05.2019 at about 10:15 a.m., an accident occurred involving the vehicle driven by the deceased, Prakash Bharti, resulting in the death of two persons. After the accident, the people and the crowd present there assaulted Prakash Bharti, leading to his death. However, none of the witnesses have made any specific statement implicating the accused persons in the commission of the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the accused persons are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, the prosecution story is not proved. 108. After the above analysis, the conclusion emerges that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II, 302, 186, and 332 of the Indian Penal 12 Code against the accused persons—Sonu @ Navakishan Chandra, Dhaneshwar Chandra, Jay Singh Manhar @ Jailer, Sonu Sahu, Sunil Chandra, Faguram Kashyap, Vinod Chandra, Ramsai Kashyap, Ramswaroop Kashyap, Bhojram Chandra, Phool Singh Yadav, Dinesh Sahu, Nagendra Chandra, Wedaram Sahu, Kanhaiya Aandele, Pushpendra Chandra, Santosh Chandra, Tulsi Baghel, Javed Banjare, Pappu Chandra @ Bisahu @ Chirradidha, Rakesh Chandra, Rajkumar Chandra, and Shankar Chandra @ Nitish. Accordingly, all the said accused persons are acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II, 302, 186, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.” 11. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, acquitting the respondents/accused from aforesaid offence, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 12. 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 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 13 the view taken is not possible at all.” 13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan