1 2025:CGHC:56017-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.92 of 2018 Babudas S/o Late Faguram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Bodsara, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through -The Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Chaturwedi S/o Banshilal Chaturwedi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bodsara, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 - Rajendra Dhritlahre S/o Late Shri Dhandas @ Dhanva, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bodsara, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Respondents/Accused For Appellant : Shri Satyendra Singh Tandon, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri S. K. Verma, learned counsel For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 Shri Gajendra Ratrey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 18/11/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.165/2016, whereby, the respondent No.2-Sanjay Chaturwedi and SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.11.18 18:29:55 +0530 2 respondent No.3-Rajendra Dhritlahre have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent No.2- Sanjay Chaturwedi and respondent No.3-Rajendra Dhritlahre have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC on the allegation that on 07.08.2016 around 06.30 PM, the respondent No.2-Sanjay Chaturwedi came to the house of the deceased-Itwari @ Babulal, who went along with him by his motorcycle and on the way, the respondent No.3-Rajendra Dhritlahre joined them and reached the shop of one Santosh Pal (PW-5) and took liquor from his shop and after consuming the liquor, the deceased started returning by foot, but was resisted by the respondents, owing to which, the deceased started abusing them with filthy words and then, assaulted and during the course of scuffle, he (Itwari) was assaulted by the respondent No.3-Rajendra Dhritlahre with the aid of stone and thereafter, they thrown the body of him in the field of one Tiharu. Further allegation of the prosecution is that after committing the murder of deceased (Itwari), the respondent No.2-Sanjay Chaturwedi made an extra-judicial-confession before one Ashok Kumar Soni (PW-19). The respondents No.2 and 3 have, thus, been charge-sheeted for the commission of the alleged offence as mentioned herein-above. 3) In order to establish the alleged allegations, wife of the deceased- Mehatarin Bai (PW-1) and his brother-Babu Das (PW-12) were 3 examined and, according to them, the deceased in the evening of the said fateful day, had gone along with the respondent No.2- Sanjay Chaturwedi, but, the alleged of their versions have, however, not found to be corroborated by said Santosh Pal (PW-5), in whose shop, they had purchased the liquor, as he has not stated that on the said fateful day and time, they had come to his shop and purchased the liquor and, similar was the statement of his son, namely, Beerbal (PW-4). It is, therefore, difficult to hold that on the said fateful day and time, the deceased was with them, as alleged by the prosecution. 4) Now, insofar as, the extra-judicial-confession made by the respondent No.2-Sanjay Chaturwedi before Ashok Kumar Soni (PW- 19) on 09/08/2016 vide Ex.P-53, is concerned, the said fact has, however, not been proved by him (PW-19), when he was examined before the Court. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged extra-judicial-confession made by the respondent No.2- Sanjay Chaturwedi before him, as alleged by the prosecution. 5) In view of the aforesaid background and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be held that the respondent No.2-Sanjay Chaturwedi and respondent No.3- Rajendra Dhritlahre are involved for the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 6) Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- SD (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane